Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2023

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

(Posted) RD: Kurt Widmer

 * Support Looks alright. Not a stub article and there are no referencing issues. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD Relatively short but meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 04:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Trial of Lina E.

 * Oppose. Violent criminals are jailed every day, including for murder, rape etc. While this case certainly affected the six people she attacked, I don't see any broader impacts that would justify a blurb. Modest Genius talk 11:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the sources, there have already been riots in Berlin, Bremen, Dresden, Hamburg, Leipzig and other cities in response to this ruling. This is no common case, it's more of a national spotlight one. 〜  Festucalex  •  talk  11:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has just two sentences about the protests. If those are the main story, that should be reflected in the blurb and the article. But it looks like they're still pretty small. Modest Genius talk 12:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Modest Genius + notability. Violent criminals like this are arrested and jailed and convicted every day, and have been for forever. I can't see how this one instance is so notable that it deserves to be put on the Main Page as a blurb. If the protests were George Floyd-level (i.e. everywhere and everyone knows about it, and no I'm not comparing the people, just the protest sizes), I could see it. In this instance, however, this is the first time I'm hearing about it. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sergio Calderón

 * Oppose - Article too short, doesn’t even reach 150 words in the main text. ⇒ Lucie Person (talk&#124;contribs) 06:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is too stubby to be on ITNRD at this time. Expansion is needed, and a lot of it. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stub. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is too short, and the content is a personal introduction. Not really news. Not newsworthy.Hhhh2 (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Latvian presidential election

 * Is this really ITN/R? While the president of Latvia isn't purely ceremonial, it's the position is not nearly as powerful as in countries with a presidential system. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, if it isn't voted by a popular vote, it is not notable. did we post the 2022 Indian presidential election? Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically the president of the United States ins't elected by popular vote either... DecafPotato (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a bit different though, since people vote for electors who then vote for their candidate. On the other hand... people don't vote for the Prime Minister in Westminster systems by popular vote, but, quite obviously those are notable enough for ITN/R. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is ITN/R. It doesn't matter if the country isn't "nearly as powerful" as other countries. All countries listed under the list of sovereign states are to be in ITN, given that the article quality meets the requirements for ITN. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You must have misunderstood me, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't say anything about the power of the country; that is absolutely irrelevant here. I said that the president isn't nearly as powerful in Latvia as the president in presidential systems are, and so this arguably does not qualify for ITN/R. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  01:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I did misunderstand you. In your case, it could be indeed argued that it might not qualify for ITN/R, but at the same time, if we try to put it in another perspective, would we post the elections of the Finnish president, despite him/her holding little power compared to the prime minister? TwistedAxe   [contact]  10:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Rereading my comment, I realize I wasn't clear. I'm pretty sure we wouldn't post the Finnish president. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article needs some work, but should be ok for ITN. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Parliamentary system plus Turkey isn’t posted either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.248.15.100 (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Does not appear to be ITNR, as the prime minister appears to hold the executive powers in Latvia (per List of current heads of state and government) and this was not a general election. May still be considered significant for posting depending on its implications for broader international affairs in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Curbon7 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the article, President of Latvia, the president shares executive power with the cabinet and prime minister. According to the "duties and rights" section of said article, this includes having responsibility over fairy major affairs, such as war/military, representing the country internationally, initiating and suspending laws, and the like. However, it is true that they have a power check in the form of the PM. I'd say that while the PM holds more executive power, the situation in Latvia differs from the vast majority of prez-PM situations in that there isn't as enormous a power and responsibility difference between the two positions. While I'm not entirely certain, I can definitely understand the argument that the executive privileges of the president in Latvia make this at least a gray area that may require invoking WP:IAR. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 01:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per my comments above. While Latvia usually isn't a particularly major nation, the context of the Russia-Ukraine war gives it a bigger profile than typical. The election of a staunchly pro-western president (a la Petr Pavel) is the culmination of the past year-and-a-half of anti-Russian policy in Latvia and it will be interesting to see how the country's significant Russian minority reacts, which brings big implications for the region considering the current political crisis in Moldova. Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now There isn’t any prose in the “Results” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a general election, no significant power in the President's title, and no prose in the Results section. Pass. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a recurring item and for its good quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Election of a president who DOES have power, even if not a terrible amount. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The president of Latvia does not have significant power, and this is not ITNR. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ama Ata Aidoo

 * Support this fantastically referenced article and RD entry. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Ouro. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  needs citations, or alternatively ISBNs or equivalent. There's an oddly-placed list of bullet items at the end of, which is otherwise mostly prose.  Unsourced too (but maybe already mentioned in sections above).—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment fixed bullet items at the end of the article, fused the ones that were already not stated in article into the article with citations. Citations have also been provided for Selected works and some with their ISBNs or ISSNs. Article has been updated per above comment. Ampimd (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck. There's a couple of Cn tags outstanding though.—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have fixed those remaining CN tags. Mind taking another look? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support All previously pointed out have been revised and considering her influence during her lifetime, it is judged that she deserves to be selected for ITN.Kloyan.L (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jessie Maple

 * Support Article is well sourced and long enough for ITNRD. Was gonna say no on the filmography section, but saw the source for the films. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  I think this is symbolic.The first African -American woman admitted to the New York camera operators union.Also in my opinion it's a representative thing. CAI XIAOHUA (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

RD: John Beasley

 * Oppose for now This seems stubby & needs more references, particularly the filmography. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Honestly, the article could use more referencing and sources but the person isn't notable enough to have a very long article written about him. The article is ok and should be alright to post. TwistedAxe   [contact]  19:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The filmography remains mostly unsourced. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

RD: Don Bonker

 * Oppose There are no sources in the Early life, Political career, and Later career sections, making this article's quality subpar at best. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Added CN tags. Early Life section is completely unreferenced. TwistedAxe   [contact]  19:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

RD: Harvey Pitt

 * Weak oppose for now, support after CN is fixed. Quickly reading through the article, the first sentence seems to be unreferenced. Once it's fixed, I'll be supporting. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * CN tag fixed. Thriley (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lead needs more than one sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-view, please? An anon contributor has put in a new lead section that is longer than some of the other RD candidates. --PFHLai (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The dedicated "Criticism" section is counter to the NPOV WP:STRUCTURE policy.—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eusebius McKaiser

 * Support&mdash;Remarkably well-referenced, comprehensive, and to-the-point. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a biographical article worthy of the main page. Kurtis (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash; Article seems in good shape. McKaiser was well-known enough in South Africa to merit mentioning on the main page. Gold  fritter  11:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill McGovern (American football)

 * Support Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough prose & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above.  TwistedAxe   [contact]  10:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Although the article is not long, but a detailed introduction to the American football coach, is a meaningful article.GAOPEIYUN (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * ·Support There are a lot of references and information, and it looks like a very well-developed article. And he is a contributor in his field (American soccer). Roci xu (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Drone strikes on Moscow
This might turn out to be a serious escalation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine BBC AP CNN. 194.102.58.6 (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to WP:ITN. In order for your nomination to be considered, please create a nomination using the ITN candidate template. You've already got the sources, we need more information such as a blurb and a target article. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  14:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that this comment was made prior to creating a proper nomination, when IP 194 previously attempted to nominate this item. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait to see just what the nature of this escalation will be. Unless Russia truly ramps up their military response, this may just be considered an incremental exchange in the war (if indeed this was a Ukrainian attack). --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  15:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — See ongoing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - per my statement on the Kremlin drone attack. Ukraine is denying it, but it appears as if Russia's claims are being acknowledged much more by international press this time, perhaps due to greater evidence. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 16:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment what interception? The drones hit their targets. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose - covered by ongoing.  nableezy  - 18:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is covered by the ongoing item, then "Russian invasion of Ukraine" is no longer a valid label (perhaps "Russo-Ukrainian War" would be more precise). Striking buildings in Moscow is definitely not part of the invasion of Ukraine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support a target change to the entire war article. The invasion is merely a phase of said war. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There isn't a target article comparable with 2023 Kremlin drone explosion. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created one (2023 Moscow drone strikes), but its still in an infantile state; it will need expansion before going on the main page. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 21:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's currently just two sentences and expansion seems difficult because of a lack of reliable sources. Note that Ukraine denies launching the attack and so  we're mostly dependent on Russia's side of the story. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There was no reason to create a separate article at this time on that. It is seemingly part of the war, and should be covered as part of the time line. M asem (t) 03:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it turns out to be insignificant it could later be redirected to the main article on attacks or the war timeline, with any salvageable content merged. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered in ongoing. The article currently seems to undergo major changes, too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. First, it's covered by an ongoing event, and second, as for the material impact it's minor. I agree that on the whole it's perhaps significant, as the place lies quite a distance from the invasion area but not ITN-worthy. --Ouro (blah blah) 01:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until we receive some type of confirmation that these drones were, in fact, fired by Ukraine at Moscow. If that is the case, then I think this would be a significant enough development by itself to merit a standalone blurb, ongoing link notwithstanding. However, I'd like to register my extreme skepticism that Ukraine would order such an attack and risk losing the goodwill of the international community, which has been vitally important in their war effort. Kurtis (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment either we decide everything related to the war is covered by ongoing, or we post major developments in the war anyway. I personally prefer the latter, but whatever we choose, we should be consistent. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, again. Yet another non-story. So a bunch of drones are shot down or suppressed in a country actively at war with a neighbor. I fail to see why this event is worth posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment We don't have confirmation that Ukraine is responsible for the drone attacks, so, at this stage, it's unrelated to the invasion already posted onto ongoing. If we evaluate this independently, drone attacks on buildings in the capital of the largest country in the world is a very big deal and notable news, which is proved by the front-page coverage in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - We're a day out now and I don't see there being any evidence of an imminent escalation. If we get to two or three days out from the drone strikes and still nothing is done, that would hint at this being a false flag operation for propaganda purposes. But even casting my crystal ball of original research aside, it would indicate nonetheless that this would not be a suitable standalone blurb. --Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  12:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Covered by ongoing barring any major escalation, which at this point seems unlikely. The Kip (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The first blurb is a no go since we still can't say as a matter of fact who did it, whether it was Ukraine, a Russian false flag, etc. Russian claims are that "none of the drones hit their target" and that there were only "two minor injuries" and no fatalities. Despite pledges from Russia to retaliate, it also seems that this (fortunately) has not led to major escalations. So as of right now, this doesn't stand out from the other incidents involving drones in the Russo-Ukrainian war. <b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gershon Edelstein
This is significant not only due to religious and social reasons (over 200,00 people attended his funeral), but also because he was chairman of the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah - hence wielding significant power in Israel's politics - which has been a topic of interest for the news page for a while.
 * Oppose Maybe his page needs more editing.
 * One of the most poorly referenced biographies that I've seen in a while. Stephen 00:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it good now? Shibolet Nehrd (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Stephen 23:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The biography needs heavy sourcing. I've added the required CN tags to the article where the paragraphs are unreferenced. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Victor Galeone

 * Shame this didn't get promoted since it was marked as ready. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

*Support after fixing CN tag One unreferenced paragraph needs to be fixed before it's ready. Support, article is now ready. TwistedAxe  [contact]  22:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I provided a reference for that paragraph. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you! TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It has enough prose & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Much of the earlier bio reads like an CV in prose. There are more materials for his career as a bishop, but I'm not sure about the sourcing. Is "Sylvia's Site" RS? BLP may apply there. --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I replaced the Sylvia reference w/a reference from a Florida news station. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William O'Neil

 * Support after fixing CN tag. There is one unreferenced paragraph that needs to be cited. Once fixed, consider this a support. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose on quality due to both the CN tag, and too many "For the x person" at the top of the page. Ouch. Support Article's issues have been fixed. Looks good. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved now.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - and ready to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michel Côté

 * Support. Two unreferenced sentences that need to be cited, other than that article looks okay. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to the two unsourced statements with CN tags. Support I have fixed the unsourced statements., , and , would you mind taking another look at this? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note – I've added an additional citation needed tag.  Schwede 66  02:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There are still 3 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * References have been added. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. BTW, the single-sentence paragraph on Broue could use some explanation/elaboration. --PFHLai (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I combined the single-sentence paragraph on Broue w/another paragraph that talked about it & added some more info. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It has enough prose & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacob Turkel

 * Support. I don't love the one sentence sections, but that's not a reason to hold it back. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality (sourcing + length) looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Indian Premier League Final

 * Oppose for now. Good game and congratulations to Chennai. The article for the final needs to be updated with all the statistics and needs to be additionally tidied up to make it ready for ITN. Once that is completed, I would support but right now the article is not ready. Crecy1346 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good enough to be posted. Crecy1346 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Crecy1346 -- I think has taken care of most of the stats. I filled a couple of minor ones and the article does seem good. Ktin (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 - We should post now. Crecy1346 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Suitable prose update, everything looks sourced now. Good article. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Though we should use Devon Conway as the image as he was player of the match; this is standard. I have changed the blurb for ENGVAR and sent File:Devon Conway (Cricketer).jpg to WP:CMP. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am good with that. I will add the other version to the AltBlurb -- the two images can be rotated if needed. Ktin (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite: ENGVAR would only be an issue if it only had "Chennai", but with the plural "Chennai Super Kings", win would have been fine. At any rate, I left as you proposed. —Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Good amount of prose now. The Kip (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article has enough prose & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R with good enough prose + citations. Good for the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support prose added, looks good. Congrats to the updaters! - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 00:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to go. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 01:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the Gujarat Titans article has no update regarding the 2023 season in its 'Team history' section. 119.152.238.112 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For ITN posting, we typically only consider the quality of the bolded link(s).—Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Ugandan Homosexuality bill

 * Oppose Per Guardian "Bill retains harshest measures of legislation adopted in March, including death penalty for certain same-sex acts". This is maintaining the status quo for the most part, outside of the expanded penalties. --M asem (t) 16:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Per Masem. As other editors have noted, additional sources will not help your case. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New Indian parliament building

 * Oppose Really? A new building? No, on both notability and on quality (the 'Timeline' section feels quite rushed). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 04:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Per Fakescientist8000. I would also oppose both of those scenarios. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support on notability (although I'd remind that Westminster or the Capitol are several times as old, so a direct comparison isn't really possible), but Oppose on article quality for now. Chaotic Enby (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Come on Knight… _-_Alsor (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work The article needs copy-editing for grammar, tense and detail. For example, what is the building made of and what is its architectural style?  The article doesn't say.  And it doesn't seem stable – there's a proposal to change its title (again) – and there's political issues around the various protests. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Oppose. Per Fakescientist8000. Its just a building and is not really important to be posted on ITN. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 08:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The issue of the UK Parliament bodies moving away from the Palace of Westminster shall be in all probability temporary for the purpose of restoration works to this magnificent building. It shall not be permanent, hence, comparison is missed. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A mainly symbolic change, with no significant implications. Nsk92 (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If a new airplane isn't considered newsworthy enough for ITN, then a new building certainly isn't. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, you do not need to post 20 news sources in the nomination header. They will not help your argument. Three is fine. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment If notability is to be further gleaned from the protests then they should be in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Oppose per Fakescientist8000 and Andrew🐉. Cheers! // <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. A million links to articles will not convince me that this should be on ITN. It's getting to the point that when I see an obviously-not-improtant-enough headline, I know who nominated it. (Also, you'd think after this many nominations, said user would learn how to write a usable blurb, but alas.) -- Kicking222 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sine the snark, I have to agree. This is unproductive and borders on intervention. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A change in national capital city à la Egypt and Indonesia, postable. Moving to a different building down the street, not postable. Curbon7 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It's making some news, and was a project of considerable expense, but what lasting significance does it really have? There's no effect on India's administrative organization whatsoever; it's just new chairs and offices. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose New buildings are not ITN-appropriate topics. --M asem (t) 16:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it's something major like the tallest building in the world? Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Manchester City win the Premier League

 * Oppose as stale Man City already won the title on 20 May. It was already nominated at, and was not posted. We've posted winners before the season is over on many occasions This is old news, and still the article prose is largely unsourced. We shouldn't post early in some seasons, yet conveniently defer in others to buy time for it not being ready.—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support alt2. Firstly, this is the correct time to nominate - at the end of the season when all the games have been completed and the final positions have been determined (including relegation, qualification for Europe etc.). I strongly disagree with Bagumba on this point. Secondly, the previous nomination failed because the article lacked prose content. There's now a seven-paragraph summary of the season's events, which isn't particularly well referenced (there are a few cn tags throughout the article) but does meet our minimum requirements. It would be good to resolve those before posting, but fundamentally this is the correct time for this blurb. Alt2 is our standard blurb phrasing. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that we post at the end of the season was rejected by almost all participants in the discussion linked by Bagumba above. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not true. Three editors (including me) argued to wait, one argued against, and the rest didn't mention that aspect. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Who were the three who argued to wait? As far as I can see, Masem initially proposed codifying that as the rule, but then switched to neutral, with the extra opinion that should we not post when the winner is known, we shouldn't then give a second bite of the Cherry later on, which is what's being proposed here. As far as I can see, every other participant in the discussion bar yourself was for posting as soon as the champion is known, and that's also the precedent in all but one affected year. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same discussion? In In_the_news/Candidates/May_2023, Black Kite !voted to wait until the season completed and nableezy agreed saying 'wait for the conclusion of the season'. Kiril Simeonovski then disagreed, though their argument was disputed by the same two users. My comment was right at the end, also arguing for waiting until the season was over. Masem doesn't seem to have commented at all. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha, now I understand the confusion, we are looking at different things. I'm alluding to the 2021 discussion at WT:ITN - - discussing the principle of such things. Everyone but yourself opposed the proposal to set in stone that we post at the end of the season, and rather opined that we should post when the winner's known. And we them posted the 2021 result before season end. That consensus should have been explicity noted at ITN/R really, but in any case it should be binding now per that discussion and the precedence, absent a clear consensus at WT:ITN to revisit that.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale and speedy close. Per Bagumba The Premier league winner is always posted when the winner is known, not at the end of the season, as per most past precedent and the discussion Bagumba linked above. If this wasn't posted at the time it was actually in the news then that's too bad, apologies I would have supported strongly at the time but missed it. Two wrongs don't make a right though, and we shouldn't post old news now just because it was missed earlier. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We were specifically told when it was known to wait until the season ended, and now we're being told it's old news because it wasn't posted when it was known? The Kip (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * More people said that the quality was lacking. As for those that said wait, one of them was in the prior ITNR discussion in 2021 that determined that we have posted before the season ends many times, and there was no consensus to have to wait. Another one perhaps just remembered what they wanted to happen in 2021, not what ultimately happened with the nom.—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Re "We were specifically told" - who told you exactly? Is there someone in charge here who gets to pronounce on such things with definitive authority? Past precedence, including the meta discussion in 2021,clearly established that we post when the winner is known. That did not happen because the article was (and still isn't) up to scratch and nobody fixed it in time. The boat has now sailed, but everyone will know for next year. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now due to quality issues due to an orange-tagged section & cn tags elsewhere. Neutral on whether or not this is stale. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely not stale, as we didn’t post the winner back then because the seasons article was unstable and incomplete and could not be complete until this weekend as the relegation places were yet to be decided. If the Premier League winner is posted when they clinch and not when the season ends then idk how you’d post it in the case where you could not know who would be relegated. So in sum support  when the tags are fixed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when cited It’s not stale. Still needs citations but well-written otherwise. The Kip (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It emphatically is stale. ITN goes by stories that are in the news, per the purpose outlined at WP:ITN, and the story here - "Manchester City win the Premier League" broke in the news on 20 May, when all the media outlets declared it as such - . It wasn't posted then due to quality issues, but that doesn't mean it should be posted now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's not stale. The ITN/R listing is for the Premier League which didn't conclude until last Sunday. It isn't for "who wins the Premier League".  Having said that, this is probably moot anyway as it needs a lot of citations and I doubt if those are going to be fixed before it does go stale. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The story here is the entire tournament, not just who won. I appreciate this may be difficult to understand for users who aren't used to leagues having promotion and relegation, but the relegation & European qualification places are just as important to fans of the teams involved as the championship is to the winner. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Im quite sure Amakuru is well aware of promotion and relegation. But the rest of the comment I agree with. The Premier League concludes with Manchester City as champions is not a stale story since it depends on the Premier League concluding. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as stale, close - It's unfortunate that this is what happened given the discussion in the previous nom, but the time to post would have been at the conclusive game. Sadly, that nom fell apart due to failure to meet the minimum quality required for posting to ITN. As we have failed to post this event at its pinnacle of newsworthiness, this needs to be closed. --Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harald zur Hausen

 * Support. Worthy entry but has a lot of missing refs and now well referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope I fixed them, please check, Innisfree987. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great, thank you ! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Indy 500

 * Oppose after looking at the article. No details on the actual race itself (which is understandable, since the 500 just wrapped up.), so probably unfair to review it now, though. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a summary now, so I'm swinging my vote to Support as the nominator. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support now that we have a race summary. It's a major sporting event that should be put there if Brooks Koepka winning the PGA championship is there. I would recommend putting "107th Indianapolis 500" in the blurb because it's formally referred to that way. Tableguy28 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with adding "107th" to the blurb. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Race report is up. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment needs sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added sources for the starting grid and for Rahal substituting for Wilson. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ITN/R, good race report/summary. --  Anc516  (Talk ▪ Contribs) 15:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Article is ITN/R with enough prose/citations. Looks good for the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Blurbs typically don't show the year or edition of recurring events.—Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Turkish presidential election

 * Oppose for now Article hasn't been updated yet; the final results (let alone any prose) are missing.  Schwede 66  18:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support Some prose should be added to the section "Results". Once done, it's good to go.  Schwede 66  19:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now Several cn tags, no prose in the Results section, the Aftermath section should be expanded too. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still oppose the Aftermath section has been slightly expanded, which is good, but there is still no prose in the Results section, and the two cn tags and one clarification needed tags are still present. Vacant0 (talk) 08:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as written&mdash;The fact that he won in a run-off election, and that the People's Alliance retained their parliamentary majority, are important details that should also be mentioned. Kurtis (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the new blurb. 👍🏻 I think the article is serviceable enough for the main page. Kurtis (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now Lots of tables with little prose as of now. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 03:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved and updated.Randam (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Quality still isn't great, especially the "Reactions" section, most of which is just an unreadable one-paragraph list of people having congratulated Erdogan. Chaotic Enby (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support the "Reactions" is now much better and once the results is 100% the page is ready. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe add that he defeated the united opposition candidate Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. In a run-off, the opposition is always united, and we never post losers in presudential elections.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support after improvements and as a common topic. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the orange tag in the "Second round" section is resolved (though I do doubt if it is even needed). DecafPotato (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support this should have been added already.
 * DigitalDasein (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - now or never. Nosferattus (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is ready. StellarHalo (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article looks updated and ready for release. -- Adem (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It's been days since the official results were released. GodzillamanRor (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think it's too late to add it now. RobinZwaard (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A455:D07B:1:44C0:F60C:B24A:5592 (talk)
 * Support Important election in a G20 state and looks comprehensive and good quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.248.15.100 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Ready – Article is good to go and if I hadn't voted, I would have posted it now.  Schwede 66  02:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note I've removed the last part about the Grand National Assembly, which is not covered in the bolded 2023 Turkish presidential election. 2023 Turkish parliamentary election was nominated at, and seems stale from weeks ago. Feel free to discuss if an exception is warranted.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the People's Alliance winning the parliamentary election should be mentioned in the blurb b/c of it's relationship w/Erdogan, which should also be mentioned. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note also that there is no prose at, and the results that are discussed in the lead have a Cn tag.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that’s a problem since it’s not the bolded article. And it is important to mention it because it means they have full control of the government. Opposition wanted to move back to a parliamentary system but that won’t happen now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.248.15.100 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree w/this. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Comac C919

 * Support Very long and detailed article. It could do with a copy edit for tense. I count five "citation needed" and two "needs update" tags. Overall, it's good enough to go to the Main Page, though.  Schwede 66  18:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: I've deal with a number of the "citation needed" by either removing the uncited content or by adding a reference. I count one remaining cn tag.  Schwede 66  19:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A maiden flight of a brand new commercial airplane, in keeping with the same consensus that we apply to orbital space flights. We've posted similar instances of Boeing aircraft firsts and lasts. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Are we going to do this for every country? Good for China, but what exactly is the broader significance of this? DarkSide830 (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a competitor to the Boeing/Airbus airplane manufacturing monopoly. It'd be akin to a new big tech company being built in direct competition to Google and Facebook. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  22:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And assuming proper competition will be achieved is CRYSTAL in my estimation. For example, I could start the nest Facebook or Google today, but it's most likely my company won't even merit an article in the near future, much less merit ITN consideration. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that news agencies are taking the time to report on this. This being in the news hints that this is being considered a genuine competitor to the two aforementioned airline agencies, especially with all of the financial and technological horsepower that China and COMAC possess. Crystal ball or not, clearly someone out there thinks it's newsworthy. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  01:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Comac is supposed to be the Chinese competitor of Boeing and Airbus, and it clearly has potential because it comes from the second country with most air passengers. Just for comparison, we posted Boeing 787's maiden flight in December 2009, so it's not uncommon to post such events.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per DarkSide830. No broader significance. -- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Kiril. One of the few states with the economic infrastructure to realistically compete with commercial transport giants such as Boeing/Airbus/UAC. The Kip (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - could be a harbinger for competition with Boeing and Airbus. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 22:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not opposed to the idea, I think this is noteworthy of being on the front page. The being said, the article has at least 5 Citation Needed prompts. I know the guidelines page said 1 or 2 shouldn't hold an article up, but as this a bit more than just 2 is that fine? Captain  Galaxy  23:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - It helps emphasizes the importance of the flight of the airline. Rager7 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is just another product. No further significance. And personally, for me the significance is reduced further as it was likely manufactured with the help of industrial espionage and IP theft. --Ouro (blah blah) 03:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the notability of the maiden flight itself, I don't think espionage and theft mitigate the significance of an event in any way&mdash;they might even bolster it. For instance, let's say Venezuela managed to successfully detonate a nuclear weapon, but the only reason they were able to do so is because they used spies in another nuclear-armed state to procure everything they needed. Would we use that information to disqualify Venezuela's nuke from the main page? Kurtis (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but bear in mind that nuclear arms (and their detonations) are quite a different league than airplanes. Such a case as You described would qualify for ITN either way. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per DarkSide830, this has no significance, it is not ITN-worthy, and, if we do this for every product there is, we'd be having a completely messed up ITN. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This doesn't seem significant. IMO, posting this when less significant stories are rejected would seem like an ad for this jet. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm not seeing the significance. If it was supersonic or had some radical new technology I would support it but from my understanding it is neither of those things.
 * Aure entuluva (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per DarkSide830. Sure it may be a flight on new plane, but its not quite notable for ITN. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 08:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I can't remember if we posted any of the Boeing maiden passenger flights, but there is something to be said about novel aspects of new technology in planes (like more electric planes, biofuel planes, etc.) The C219 may be a novel design of China here, but its using a collection of existing technology and nothing new in of itself. --M asem  (t) 16:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. December 2009 as commented on above.  Schwede 66  19:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it can be a trap to focus on new technology over the simple reality of a new big piece of traditional infrastructure. It is probably "less WP:crystal" for us to feature a conventional addition to the landscape, and these huge planes are still mighty impressive, as the article hopefully conveys. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The other thing to take into consideration too is that if it ends up being cheaper to build these planes than any of the Boeing/Airbus equivalents, then that subsequently makes it cheaper to sell on to airline companies. No matter how much people hold their nose when it comes to doing business with China, especially under the current sanction-heavy environment, no one is going to say no to cheaper products in the long run. And yes, of course all of this is WP:CRYSTAL, but it's reflective of a common trend in the Chinese industry from top to bottom. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable flight of the first Chinese domestically designed plane that competes on the same market as Boeing and Airbus. Yxuibs (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No evidence of long-term significance or potential to be competitor to Airbus/Boeing. Right now, no major airline outside of China has ordered this new model. StellarHalo (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per BBC: Comac - which plans to produce 150 planes annually in five years' time - says it has already secured more than 1,200 orders for the C919. Take that with the disclaimer, however, of Some experts, however, say that most of these orders are believed to be letters of intent from domestic customers. Who to believe? Who konws? This is the post-information age. Cheers, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - a significant development in the aviation industry that's in the news. Shaheen of Iqbal (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Important news for aviation industry，a new challenger has emerged to challenge Boeing and Airbus. -- Yzf  99  10:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yzf99 (talk • contribs)
 * Support – Appropriate feature for ITN. Article looks pretty solid and detailed; seems like a fine article to promote. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose China, the world's largest manufacturer, manufactures another product. There would be loads of opposes if for example Tuvalu produced their first ever motorbike for example, I don't see how this would be any different other than its much less surprising given China produces nearly every type of other engineering equipment known to man. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is interesting news to someone like me who likes to follow business & economics news, however it does not have enough general importance to be ITN. Tradedia talk 18:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antonio Gala

 * Oppose A lot of areas in the article need citation work. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - I've cited much of the article and removed the statement regarding him being part of a Hispano-Soviet friendship group (cited to a now dead Wikispaces page in the past) and the sweeping statement that he was president of the ITI that was recently added without any sources (and has unfortunately already begun to be featured prominently in news coverage of his death, so more reason why we should pay extra care to our articles on Wikipedia as the ones carrying the burden of knowledge in the internet age). @Fakescientist8000 - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 05:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support – I've placed a couple of tags that will have to be resolved before this can be posted.  Schwede  66  02:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 13:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 IIHF World Championship

 * As per the usual, a lot of trees are sad since there too many tables vs. prose. Also, the playoff bracket is wonky; Canada is on the lower half of the bracket from the semis onward, but is on the top-half of the bracket in the final? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the typical sports article reason: too little prose, too many tables. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mordechai Rechtman

 * Support. Long enough, well cited, has been updated with death. There are a lot of subheadings relative to the small amount of content, but that's a minor issue. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It’s long enough & it has enough references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

RD: George Maharis

 * Sourcing needed in the Filmography and Discography sections, please. --PFHLai (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) RD: Odette Nilès

 * Oppose Article is too short (and yes, I'm aware it's not a stub technically, but look at this and tell me it isn't a practical stub.) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like it’s long enough & it’s well-referenced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

2023 Astore avalanche

 * Support Seems like a decently notable tragedy that should be featured. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article looks pretty bad. Oppose on quality. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a non-notable event., I encourage to become more familiar with WP:GNG and WP:NEVENTS before creating further articles. Many of your run of the mill events articles have been deleted or draftified shortly after creation, and you've received (now-removed) warnings about this on your talk page. An event should not have an article unless it has encyclopedic significance. Simple WP:PRIMARYNEWS reporting does not meet GNG, and people dying does not meet NEVENTS. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Thebiguglyalien. The Kip (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Take out the reactions and it's a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Tragic, but not notable. Alex-h (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: James Hartle

 * Twitter is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Uh, I think the article has been updated, because according to the article, he's apparently still alive. Also, like User:Muboshgu said, Twitter is not a reliable source. For more information regarding reliable & unreliable sources, see WP:USERG and WP:RS. TwistedAxe  [contact]  10:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reopened the nomination. His obituary has been published by UCSB: . Thriley (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Somebody will have to tidy up the article and provide decent referencing if this is supposed to go anywhere.  Schwede 66  02:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cannes/Palme d'Or

 * Oppose on quality Film fest article is entirely lists and tables outside of the lede. The Kip (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. TwistedAxe   [contact]  00:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose So many lists and yet so little prose. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Per above Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Kip.  Schwede 66  19:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

FC Bayern Munich wins Bundesliga

 * Oppose Stub with only prose in the lead. Otherwise, all tables.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once more prose regarding the course of the season is added. This year, it's never been so close in such a long time with the champion last being decided via goal difference over 20 years ago. Also, if we have blurbed the Prem, then this BL season is much more blurb-worthy as many decisions (Championship, Europe & relegation) fell on the last matchday. - CDE34RFV (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CDE34RFV: As this item is already a regular at WP:ITNR to be posted, the only relevant concern at this point is the page's quality. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added season summary. Might need some citations, but at least we got some more text. - CDE34RFV (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We haven't even blurbed the Premier League yet. It seems it was decided to leave it until the whole season was finished, despite the fact that it was agreed in previous years that the time to blurb was when the title was won. It's old news now of course. Effy Midwinter (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a perfunctory amount of prose in the lead including the wonderful "However, they bottled it ..." And then it's just table after table – sixteen by my count.  And there's a year error – 2022 rather than 2023 – which indicates that this is just a set of tables cut/paste from last year. And there are no pictures –  not even a Nike hat. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There’s now a sufficient write up of the season but it is entirely unreferenced.  Schwede 66  20:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange tagged section for being completely unsourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Seemin Jamali

 * Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982 Talk --- 17:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub.  Schwede 66  20:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently, there are only 196 words of prose. Please expand this stubby article. Too much materials mentioned in the lede should be elaborated in the main prose. The Career section reads more like the subject's Education section, with little on what she did in her career to earn her nicknames as mentioned in the lede. --PFHLai (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a stub. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is currently too short to be put on the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 14:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

(Attention needed) 2023 Mauritanian parliamentary election

 * Support Article is well sourced. Fahads1982 Talk --- 17:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support Well-sourced, but a bit too high of a table-to-prose ratio for my taste. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose When I read an election article's lead, I should be able to understand the outcome or current status. That’s not the case here. So I go to the section "Preliminary results" and how much prose do I find? Exactly none. Article isn’t ready.  Schwede 66  20:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And four days later, no significant work has been undertaken to fix those shortcomings. Time to close this.  Schwede 66  19:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s been improved. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Still nowhere near good enough. Elections were held in two stages a fortnight apart. Where does it explain the voting system? And the little that is written about the results, how do I know what was decided in the first round and what came out of the second round? It just doesn’t tell us.  Schwede 66  20:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Where does it explain the voting system? That’s explained in the “Electoral system” section. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Prose needs to be added to the "Preliminary results" section. Support It’s well-referenced & it covers everything it needs to cover. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like the issues have been addressed. There is now prose in the lede and the results section. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Nagano attack

 * Support Unless something has gone seriously under the radar, this is the first mass shooting in Japan. Very sad, unfortunately makes it very notable. Article is short but fine. Kingsif (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's received primary international coverage, which does not confer notability. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's just happened, what else kind of news coverage is it going to have. ITN doesn't care if the newspapers have had some time to think about how important it is to cover an event, we take editor opinion on that as long as reliable sources have been established... if "the news is contemporary to the event" was a good reason for !oppose, nothing would get posted on here ever. Kingsif (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then ITN is out of step with WP:N, and the latter takes precedence. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If your argument is that the article does not pass GNG, you should take it to AfD. But it isn't an ITN argument, and N is not relevant to discussion here. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles also have to pass NEVENT, and that makes the issue if we're only getting a burst of coverage, then we shouldn't have an article on it. That's 100% a reason to oppose at ITN. M asem (t) 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It really isn't - this is getting off-topic, but I think it was a little irresponsible for you to mention NEVENT as a good reason to !oppose, as we can see it has already cropped up in !votes below even when the comments don't relate to the guideline (one being 'per others' and the other being classic OTHERSTUFF). I doubt "oppose per NEVENT" will catch on, but at ITN, if a bold article's existence is uncontested, we assume notability. If there are questions about the article existing, that is categorically not what ITN deals with, absolutely not a reason to !oppose - go speedy or AfD and the article can't be on the main page anyway, of course. Whether the news item is suitable for the box, a non-N kind of notable, is something to have an opinion on. But "I don't think the event is important enough for MP" (valid argument, and one that is clearly dominant in this discussion) isn't the same as "don't put it on MP because I don't think there will be future coverage". An unwritten "please do not" there I think. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * When editors create new articles on news events that do not clearly pass the GNG (which requires more than a burst of coverage) nor NEVENT, and nominate them for ITNC, it is generally bad form to AFD those articles while the ITNC is open and not clearly SNOWing against posting. So it is definitely fair game to question if the new article really meets notability standards as part of the ITNC considerations. M asem (t) 01:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * People keep responding to the "why don't you just AFD it" response by invoking WP:BEFORE, ignoring the fact that if an article truly does not deserve an article, it should be taken to AFD no matter what, regardless and in fact I would argue especially if its being taken to ITN, i.e, the main page. I find this argument rather silly, because whenever these noms close, these articles' existances persist and the people complaining about it not meeting WP:NEVENTS never bother to AFD it. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 05:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support after expansion. Fairly shocked from this incident. However, it could be slightly expanded more before it is posted. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 02:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Domestic violence, no evidence of international terrorism nor a scope to put it any more significant than other domestic violence crimes in other countries. --M asem (t) 03:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article as of now consists of only a few short paragraphs, will change my nom to Support once article has been reworked to a better quality. TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 03:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support in principle The death of the two police officers by shooting is what pushes this over the edge for me, rather than just a typical random act of violence (especially considering this Insider report from just a few weeks ago). As stated above, though, article needs work before it is mainpage ready. Curbon7 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEVENT. There's plenty of outrageous events in the news like this.  For example, a car rammed the gates of Downing Street in London yesterday, generating front page news.  On the front page of the NYT this morning, there's an account of a woman being pushed into the path of a subway train.  And so it goes.  This is valid news but we're an encyclopedia and so should be covering such topics at a broader level, not reporting each incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We apply a consistent standard for posting mass-shootings, that being of stand-out factors (racial/terror/other notable motivation/factors for the attack; higher number of deaths; and the place where it took place (commonplace or not)). I don't see the first two being fulfilled here and neither do I think the place alone makes it notable. Gotitbro (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article needs way more work, but the fact that this is a gun-related incident in Japan is very remarkable. Japan basically has very little to no gun violence, the last notable shooting that most of us remember is probably the assassination of Shinzo Abe back in July 2022. Strong support in principle, but due to the current state of the article and the quality, my support will be weak for now. Once article is expanded, consider my support. TwistedAxe   [contact]  11:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above and NEVENTS. I've also removed an inappropriate updater name. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Article is currently not convincing me that this is suitable for posting. Currently, the aftermath section only talks about Twitter users calling it an "unforgivable crime." The "Incident" section is a bit confusing and it is possible that Masamichi Aoki is not as involved as they currently appear. Needs work at the very least. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Though unusual for Japan, this isn't important enough for ITN. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - domestic violence isnt typically something that would be featured on the front page of Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the time being, oppose I want to see how the events after this play out before. This, along with the still fairly recent killing of Shinzo Abe, may be enough to spark a conversation in Japan about firearms. If it doesn't, I'd oppose. As of now, there's nothing stating I should oppose, but if there becomes a national conversation with guns, I'd support. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Just as there are shootings in countries which have many shootings which nonetheless reach a level where we put them on ITN, there are shootings in countries where they are rare which nonetheless do not rise above the general level of crime reporting and should not be put on ITN. This case, though tragic, is one such. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems strange to see Americans opposing this mass killing, when they routinely support the regular mass shootings in the US. Multiple killings in any country not at war is unusual unless it's the United States, so this is definitely newsworthy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because its domestic violence and not all that massive? Seems strange you support this and oppose ones with 10x the coverage. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I support newsworthy items which might be in an encyclopedia in a hundred years time. Mass killings in just about any country other than Amurica are almost, by default, worthy. Your parochial little "one mass shooting every day" country is a disaster and shouldn't be ever used as a context for literally anything other than exactly how life shouldn't be. What an embarrassment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And just a quick question: while we have, on average, 1.5 mass shootings per day in the United States, where do any of them become relevant? Is it "the second biggest shooting in Texas on a Tuesday"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you see, on average, 1.5 nominations for shootings in America a day? If not, as usual, stay on topic here, as WP:SOAP is prohibited. Toodles, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should be brought to WP:ANI for that rant. What the fuck is wrong with you? This is not your soapbox. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Newsworthy (burst of news coverage) is not equal to notable (enduring in-depth coverage). We have to stress pretty much constantly that WP is not a newspaper, and we should be looking to events that clearly will have a long tail of coverage, rather than just those that splash across front pages for a few days and then are never heard about again. M asem (t) 01:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tragic, but relatively small casualty event. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we don't post about the every-day mass shooting in America, why would we post about some small-casualty event in Japan? Article is currently still a stub, and just because it is a first, doesn't make it notable. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason that everyone else is opposing it, it's just domestic news. It's tragic, but not worthy of being posted in ITN. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ed Ames

 * Oppose - unfortunately, too much is unsourced to post. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Kent

 * Are filmographies usually expected to be referenced before they're posted to RD? Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:ITNQUALITY: —Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe i've cited the filmography. Do take a look to see if i've done anything wrong. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, the filmography is now referenced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It looks like it’s good enough & there are enough references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Denny Stolz

 * Support Article is well cited and good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Fakescientist8000. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joy McKean

 * Support Well-cited article, looks ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited, and long enough. Good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Krause (basketball, born 1936)

 * Support Could have sworn he was already dead, but that was Jerry Krause (basketball, born 1939). Anyway, this article is in fine shape. Teemu08 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  11:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(posted) RD: Javier Álvarez (composer)

 * Support Looks ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Long list at the end of the article that is entirely unsourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does the footnote immediately above the long list work? -- PFHLai (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's meant to, IRCAM has a list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I randomly sampled the works and they were listed.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Typhoon Mawar

 * Wait. Full impacts are not yet known. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose for now. I say wait until the typhoon dissipates as the Mariana Islands and Guam aren't the only areas that are expected to be affected. Moreover, the total damages aren't known yet and no fatalities are reported. Additionally, to your comment "Most intense typhoon of 2023", that is way too early to be said. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 23:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True but it d
 * did reach 185 mph 1-minute sustained which is the new West Pacific record for May. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. The typhoon is still ongoing and the damages currently known are very, very minimal. Plus, most of the typhoon's path has been situated within the ocean. I'm opposing if the damages are very minimal. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Despite the intensity, impacts are run of the mill. It killed 2 people. That isn't enough for posting on ITN. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support barring any challenge to notability. It's a current event and the article is sufficient. Death count is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether an event is encyclopedic. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is contending the article should be deleted, but "encyclopedic" is certainly not sufficient grounds for ITN posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't post run of the mill events here. We would be posting dozens of cyclones per year which would result in very disproportionate coverage compared to other events if every cyclone that killed someone got posted. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Run of the mill events shouldn't have Wikipedia articles at all. If that's what it is, then it should be merged into a list of tropical storms. Does this particular storm meet the criteria outlined at WP:GNG or WP:NEVENTS?  Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 02:03, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Problem is it isn't done yet. It's still impacting areas and forecast to impact more. Guam's impact wasn't major by any means but that doesn't mean the same can be said for the other areas. It's really a wait and see. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(posted) RD: Karen Lumley

 * Weak support but more expansion would be great. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  support, Article is ok for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Article needs alot more work, it's barely past being a stub. Once expanded, I'll support. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Barely long enough, though it reads like a list and at least one more citation is needed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(posted) RD: Ahmad Kamal

 * Oppose Article is a stub, I've marked it out as such. Needs expansion and more sources & citation before it's ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Twistedaxe: The page is 2061 B (337 words) of readable prose, which generally surpasses WP:STUB. What specific areas do you believe need expansion? Also, can you mark (e.g. Cn) the text you feel is unsourced. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed my mistake. I generally go by the 250 word rule of thumb when it comes to stubs, and I made a wrong judgement here. I've added the CN tag at the end of the article. Once that is resolved, I'll be updating this to be a support. Thanks for pointing it out! TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. About 2kb of readable prose, so it's probably just over a stub. Has citations throughout the article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kenneth Anger

 * Oppose for now It's quite detailed, but it has too many cn tags & a dubious tag. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Too many CN tags for this to be ITNRD quality. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolf Skår

 * Weak oppose Upon reading the article I was about to mark it as a stub but realized it's a bit too long to be a stub. With that being said though, it's barely past being a stub and the article needs alot more work definitely alot more citations. Once expanded, consider my support. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Twistedaxe: What areas do you feel require expansion? Can you mark specific sentences you feel need citations? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the ambiguity. Ever since I made this post, the article has been expanded a fair bit. When it comes to expanding the article, it would be nice to divide the biography into multiple sections such as death, personal life, etc. Other than that, article looks good but could use more work, especially considering there's only 7 sources referenced. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. 2kb of readable prose should be acceptable, and it's well sourced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The prose & references are good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cotton Tree (Sierra Leone)

 * Article seems of good quality? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as a result - forgot to say lol QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support? Article seems fine, but can a tree count as a recent "death", or should this be a blurb? TheCorriynial (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . Curbon7 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah right. Forgot the "organism" part applied to RD as well. My bad. TheCorriynial (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above; article quality is very good. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is of good quality but could use more work and be expanded. I suppose it's ok for RD. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks good. Could we keep the "(Sierra Leone)" part in the RD entry perhaps? I understand this is against precedent, but just "Cotton Tree" appearing in RD may confuse readers. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted No consensus for WP:IAR to display disambiguator.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Norbaiti Isran Noor

 * Support Well-written article. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine, I guess, except for the fact you can tell this was made in a rush. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Blurb/RD: Tina Turner

 * Support RD, Blurb? She might be on the level for a blurb. Worth seeing what others think. Although RD, wise article seems to be fine. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb Not wanting to disregard Jim Brown's achievements, but Turner is way more notable and globally well-known. It would be a nonsense if he was blurbed and she was not. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography is cited to IMDB. I'd be in favor of removing it altogether, because most of it is documentaries or cited in the prose. On balance, support RD neutral on blurb.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb Tina Turner was one the greatest singers of the 20th century, you don't get the nickname the "Queen of Rock & Roll" without a reason.--TheDutchViewer (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb One of the most recognizable singers of her time, certainly a transformative figure in her field. Her death is currently the top headline globally. Davey2116 (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb - just post. She was top field.BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Blurb blurb blurb, now now now! --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, as we normally would with a reigning queen. BD2412  T 19:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Clearly meets the "transformative figure in their field" standard. Regards So  Why  19:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb I'm usually neutral on blurbs, but a GA? That's an exception I'm willing to make. The main page should be a showcase for high quality articles, and here's one of those for an internationally significant entertainer that's pretty much ready to go up right now. There's some excellent sourcing in the article, apart from a few spaces (the filmography, namely), but they are minor aspects of a whole that I assume will be ironed out before this posts. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 19:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak oppose blurb — Article is in fine shape and the subject is obviously notable, but not for RD. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb - obviously, and would support it being posted sooner than later too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems kind of weird to call her former American Swiss naturalized in the blurb, maybe just drop the nationalities entirely? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * She renounced her US citizenship, so it was accurate. Whether it still needs to be there is another question. Black Kite (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh Im not questioning the accuracy, it just feels stilted to write out in the blurb. If nationality has to be included, and I dont think it does as her Swiss naturalization isnt really relative to her notability, then just call her Swiss. But better yet, imo, just say Rock and Roll Hall of Fame singer ... <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb World famous singer with decades spanning career. One of the best-selling recording artists of all time. There was a film about her, which is one of criteria for blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when IMDb, Discogs, Metro, and NYPost sources get replaced. Definitely notable enough for a blurb. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb No question. Article is a GA as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb there are a few films nowt sourced but the article is if high quality and explains her legacy to the music industry (with the obits, this probably should be ecpanded). --M asem (t) 19:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blub Easy one, as others have already explained. Johndavies837 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 20 minutes in and this is going to be a pretty clear cut case for a blurb. Which I Support. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - To me is a no-brainer. One of the greatest musicians in history.-- Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 19:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb A genuine legend in the music world. The Kip (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply the best. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb - Clear consensus to post. Using straight-forward blurb rather than one focused on birth nation and citizenship. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for blurb Musical legend who revolutionized rock and roll. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * need to update the two blurbs now that Turner is pictured and not Koepka. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. Done. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Close - This is about as efficient as a death blurb nomination can get. We've got the blurb, we've got the picture, consensus is clear; now we can close this out. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Mauritanian parliamentary election

 * Wait - like you said, a bit confusing, but there apparently is another election on May 27, so we should probably wait. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 12:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until the election is completed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the May 27 election There's no point in posting this when it's almost done, but not entirely done. I'd also note that the "Preliminary results" section needs prose. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait I agree as above, its still ongoing so it would be premature to declare any result on here.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(posted) 2023 International Booker Prize Winner

 * Support Seems to tick all the boxes and its time is short. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support This has enough references & it seems like it's just barely long enough to be ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Update too short per WP:ITNCRIT: The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient There's a quote attributed to The Federal, but what makes it so significant to use it as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE to quote itself? I'm not familiar with The Federal, and there is no Wikipedia article on it either.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your feedback. However, WP:ITNCRIT also says If the recent/current event relates directly to previous occurrences (e.g. a major award honoring past achievements), the article can be considered sufficiently updated when there is consensus that it contains appropriate, up-to-date coverage of the entire chronology, irrespective of when the text was written or how many sentences pertain specifically to the recent/current event (apart from the requirement that it be mentioned)., which I think applies here. I can swap out the quote from The Federal. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 14:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the "entire chronology" exemption was more related to lifetime achievement-type awards, which wouldn't apply to a book. But more background on the book has been added, and the Booker award update is more satisfactory now.  Struck my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks fine enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Restoring I'm not sure of the protocol for this, so apologies in advance if this violates any rules. But there does not seem to be any objections against posting and I do think the article's quality is enough to be posted. <b style="color:purple">⇒ Lucie Person </b><b style="color:purple">(talk&#124;</b><b style="color:purple">contribs)</b> 04:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, the last posting in 2021 bolded the author and translator, and not the book.  Not sure if there's a preference which article should be the featured one. The book was nominated (and reviewed) here.—Bagumba (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Only issue is red links for the translators. If that's okay, then we can post, but I fear this to be a noteworthy issue given the fact that we tend to include said individuals in the blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is on ITNR, the book article is fine, and the announcement is newer than several of the current blurbs (despite being older than the 7 days archiving). If anything, it's better to bold-link the specific work than the individuals involved. It's unfortunate that we don't have an article for Rodel but that doesn't disqualify anything. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  19:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fusaichi Pegasus

 * Weak support Pretty thin but referenced and meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 06:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sweet. Good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Cotton Nash

 * Support Article looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jean Haudry

 * Weak support. Borderline between stub and start class, and it reads more like a list than prose. But it's well sourced and probably sufficient for posting. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tom Sawyer

 * Support - A modern day warrior. His mind was not for rent to any god or government. Article is well-sourced, though obviously more prose in the "personal life" section would be nice. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Former congressman and article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced lists and tables tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Electroral history section has remained unreferenced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Zimmer

 * Support Well cited, well written article. Good quality. Ready to post IMO. TwistedAxe   [contact]  21:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose There are 2 or 3 unsourced statements in the article, which doesn’t make this a strong oppose, but a citation should be added to those. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 10:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article looks ok. Alex-h (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ely riot

 * Oppose - per for example In_the_news/Candidates/April_2015, In_the_news/Candidates/January_2023. Consensus appears to be that violent protests are not blurb-worthy absent them developing in to some nation-wide phenomenon. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No deaths, and the article in question does not mention the extent of property damage. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - extremely localised. And the nomination seems to be jumping to conclusions not yet in evidence about whether the police bear some responsibility. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - so minor that the only reason it hasn't dropped off the UK news feeds yet is that the police have, yet again, been caught lying about it (oh, and it was hardly "major property damage" - it was half a dozen cars). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose highly localised event. Notice even the title points to one neighbourhood. This is nothing on the scale of the 2011 England riots. I don't know this case inside out, it hasn't been on my schedule to read everything about it, but surely it's WP:WEASEL and setting a sketchy precedent to put rumours on the main page of Wikipedia, as the blurb would be. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Minor local news, and we don't post rumours. It's arguable whether this even qualifies for an article per WP:EVENTCRIT. Certainly not an ITN blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Very much a subnational event. It needs to be one heck of a riot, and of course a reliably documented one as such, to be considered ITN-worthy. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rolf Harris

 * Support Well cited article and well written - looks ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Generally looks good; as I write there are three citation needed tags that will have to be dealt with. It appears an exact date of death is not yet known but that shouldn't be a reason to hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Well cited enough for RD, exact death date will be revealed in time when reported by RS.LM2000 (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well written and cited.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 14:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography is sourced to IMDb, but it's not a reliable source (WP:IMDB).—Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. WP:Citing_IMDb is not entirely clear on whether it's appropriate to cite Filmography, based on my reading it might be ok in some circumstances. Let's compare this with Emma Watson whose filmography isn't cited at all, as opposed to Keanu Reeves filmography. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Our purpose here is to evaluate whether the proposed target is of sufficient quality to promote to the main page; there is no proposal to promote those other pages at this time. IMDb has been deemed generally unreliable by the community.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Watson and Reeves are not dead yet. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What do we do now? It has now been confirmed (via a reliable source, The Guardian) that he died on 10 May. The article has been updated. But that's a fortnight ago. Can this still be posted? HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the news of his death came out recently, then I don't see why not. Kurtis (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Recent deaths is for deaths announced in the last 7 days. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD, which forms the guidance for how RD is to operate, specifically uses the date the death was made public, and not the date of the actual death, so this is not a problem. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Filmography is now ~ 90% covered by reliable sources. Gaps for non-controversial credits are acceptable in light of length and quality of article.   GreatCaesarsGhost   11:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. ITN nominations are based on announcement of death, which usually is the day of, but not always. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - ...it's marked ready, and I agree. Jusdafax (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape. Still three citation required tags though. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with the Ready tag.BabbaQ (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Brandt
Weak support Article needs a bit of polishing, other than that it's okay. GodzillamanRor (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty notable, he has been apart of the meme culture for quite a while. TwistedAxe   [contact]  10:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Twistedaxe Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. Please focus on the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Quality looks just fine, I was just pointing out the obvious due to there being a WP:GNG tag, which I decided to counter here. I'm sure @Editor 5426387 also used it in the same context as me to provide more insight and context. TwistedAxe   [contact]  17:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support notable guy, not really as a farmer, but as a memer. The article needs some polishing, but this guy is notable enough to be on RD.Editor 5426387 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Editor 5426387: Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD." Please stop using notability for a reason to either !support or !oppose ITNRD nominations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article ain't much, but it's honest work! Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. What a legend. RIP. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sarath Babu

 * Support Huge table at the end of the article, but other than that the article is well cited. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The 'huge table' is entirely unsourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After the 'huge table', the smaller tables and bullet-points also need more sources. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ray Stevenson

 * Support Mostly done now. A few minor gaps.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and good job to all updaters. I first took a look at this a few hours ago, and it looked nothing like it does now, in regards to sourcing. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Mahdia school fire

 * Would support in principle and the proposal is fine but single line articles should be avoided as noms (even if stubs are proposed an expectation of at least a few paras is there). Gotitbro (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral on notability but strong Oppose on article quality for now. It's barely a stub. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality as it’s a stub. Will reconsider if/when expanded. The Kip (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the article is expanded. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Opppose on quality. Consider my vote to be a support once the article is expanded. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose quality just sucks. like kip, i'll reconsider when it's expanded. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Horrifically bad quality; articles contains only 180 words of prose, and to top it all off, it's a stub with 7 sources. Not good. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Poor quality article and I'm not convinced this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Unfortunately a stub article and I don't think it'll get expanded much. If, by some miracle, this article gets expanded and is well cited, I'll be supporting. TwistedAxe   [contact]  22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. Still a stub. It could be expanded more. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 01:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A new section "Investigation" has just been added. The article is no longer a stub. Nothing mind-blowing but with 19 fatalities, it should meet the ITN criteria. Note I've copy-edited the blurb and changed "at least 20" to "19".  Schwede 66  08:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support,The article looks ok now. Alex-h (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging @Layah50, @The Kip, @TheBlueSkyClub, @Fakescientist8000, @Thebiguglyalien, @Twistedaxe in light of the recent expansion. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 01:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 320 words, with 17 sources. This is still not good enough quality for the Main Page, and I could barely see this getting by ITNRD standards. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I'm inclined to agree with @Fakescientist8000 here, the article still isn't long enough and it's barely long enough to even escape being a stub article. Needs alot more work before it's ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  10:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here. Agree with @Fakescientist8000's statement. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 14:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still not enough, I have to say. I'm with @Fakescientist8000, sadly. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Reaching SNOW territory here, but I think the article is good enough. Yes it is short, but the event is significant and the article is well-sourced. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I considered posting, but while there's a few recent supports, some original opposers have also recently restated that they still believe the page is still short of content.—Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The article has 2285 bytes of prose, so is well beyond a stub, and contains the essential facts of the case as we know them. I've seen considerably less good articles than this posted in the past. please could you reconsider?  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was mostly reading the comments, and otherwise have no stake in this. It's now at 2,514 readable bytes (420 words).  Any new thoughts? —Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why these !votes are holding up the posting when there is nothing demonstrably wrong with the article. We have sitewide guidelines on what constitutes a stub and what doesn't, and 1500 is almost universally accepted. This is not remotely a stub, it's firmly start class, fully referenced, nobody has mentioned anything that is obviously missing from it, yet it's held up based on a vague assertion of not being long enough. That is wrong IMHO. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe those opposes happened before I did further expansion. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The tricky part is that WP:STUB says, There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub, and four commented that more was needed even when it was past 300 words and 1500 bytes.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe those opposes happened before I did further expansion of the article, so I'm not sure how relevant they are to the current state of the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think it's good enough now that I've updated it. Pinging @Layah50, @The Kip, @TheBlueSkyClub, @Fakescientist8000, @Thebiguglyalien & @Twistedaxe since I’ve further updated the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about everyone else, but I think it's okay now, so I'm swinging to Support. Thank you to everyone who got the article up! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Other opponents haven't weighed in, but 1 opponent now supports posting the article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Rough consensus that the content is now sufficient. WP:IAR that this thread already rolled over.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: C. Boyden Gray

 * Support Well-written article & well cited. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One unreferenced paragraph. Stephen 04:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Long enough, only one cn tag. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support All citation issues have been fixed. Marking as ready. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Brooks Koepka wins 2023 PGA Championship

 * Support Good amount of prose/description for a sports article. Ready to post IMO. The Kip (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article has okay amount of prose, but could use alot more work. Right now all I'm seeing is mostly tables and such. TwistedAxe   [contact]  06:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It has enough prose & sources to be posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good enough for ITN posting. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 01:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good and nice image of Koepka with the trophy.Newtothisedit (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Since it seems we have support of at least five, I'll mark it as ready. TheCorriynial (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough, prose summaries meet requirements.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nothing like some good old Nike product placement splashed on the Main Page. Although I'm not in favor of removing a good picture if it works, I definitely understand the complaints of other editors who say it's problematic. This particular example is pretty blatant. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point. WaltCip is talking about the picture which was first nominated (right).  That didn't seem to be a good picture and so I replaced it with FILE:Brooks Koepka, 2019 PGA Champion.jpg which is the image in the nomination template now.  That image has the PGA as a background, which seems more appropriate than a shoe company.  And the trophy looks cool. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As the poster, I chose the right one as it seemed in line with what I thought is the general ITN practice to prefer a portrait, cropped if needed, which was also in the nom: ...and a photo of Brooks is cropped... I otherwise have no preference, nor issue if a new consensus forms about the pic. —Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Brooks Koepka, 2019 PGA Champion (cropped).jpg
 * I've cropped a version with the trophy (no water brand endorsement either). Would not get as good a view of his face still.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @WaltCip, @Andrew Davidson, @Bagumba, this seems very much like a non-issue, especially with how limited our supply of images are due to our copyright policy. Are we finna not feature Formula 1 player in the future because their uniforms are essentially walking billboards? In fact, judging by WaltCip's I definitely understand the complaints of other editors who say it's problematic, I'm assuming that this "issue" has been raised in the past. Personally, this just seems like that recent referendum on Jimbo's arbcom powers - a solution in search of a problem. Lead images for both ITN and articles should be selected on how well they depict the subject, hence why his article still retains the first image. You can argue about WP:POV and WP:NOTADVERT, but I can twist the POV argument the other way, and say that via actively removing product placement, we're being biased against these companies and with advertising, I really doubt that that a Nike hat in one image is equivalent to puffed up nonsense to make readers buy shit, especially considering Commons' comparatively loose attitudes regarding neutrality. All in all, oppose removal of current image. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 13:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue about POV, I just think the photo was taken and set up with the express purpose of advertising Nike, and they succeeded. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose change of picture per Knigtoftheswords. The current one is clearly the best pic available. And the "promotion" angle is a non-argument IMHO. Just as we don't deliberately advertise companies, we don't deliberately not advertise them either. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I meannnn, yeah the alternate isnt from this year, but its from this tournament, and could add to the blurb saying (pictured from his win in 2019) which makes it marginally more interesting as well. I dont care about the nike bit, he wearing the same hat (i think) in both. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Greek legislative election

 * Wait to see what happens after, due to the results being very uncertain. It's still very early to say anything - otherwise I'd support posting this. TwistedAxe   [contact]  21:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait a day or two to see full results, then support posting. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems like ND did not win a majority in the Hellenic parliament, and it seems like a second round/snap election might be imminent. TwistedAxe   [contact]  08:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait If what the nom says is correct and snap elections are likely to be called then no oupose is served by posting this now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Snap elections won’t be for at least another month or two, however. The Kip (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for...? what we have to wait for is to see the cn tags fixed, and prose added to the results section and expand the one in the Aftermath section. The results are official and we are not soothsayers to speculate whether or not there will be snap elections. However, this does not mean that this nomination is correct, as they are per se ITNR situations independently. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment II: I say we close this and re-nominate this once the second Greek election rounds are over, as multiple sources, such as Reuters and Euronews suggest that a second Greek election round is very likely, due to Mitsotakis not securing a majority in the Hellenic Parliament. It's too uncertain to say right now who will win, as it is a very close race between ND and the opposition. Also, I'd like to add in that this nom is a WP:CRYSTAL. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not exactly how it works. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The elections are due in June, which means that all of the previous noms in May will be archived, so what is the point of keeping this nom open? TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The completed election processes are indivudally and independently ITN-worthy. Whether or not there is an electoral rerun in a short space of time. This conclusion was reached some time ago. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never heard about this. If you'd be kind to link the conclusion, that would be appreciated. With practically every election we nominate for ITN, we always wait for the final results to come out. TwistedAxe   [contact]  11:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 49th G7 summit

 * Oppose Article is nowhere close to quality to post - too many tables and pictures and very little prose. Further, we typically are looking for significant resolutions or other decisions that should have wide-ranging effects. That they simply met without any roadmap for future change is not really appropriate for us. --M asem (t) 17:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - was finna nominate this myself, and as such have seen the pitiful state of the article. Upon fixing, it should be posted; nowhere in the G7's entry on WP:ITNR does it list that the summit ought to have significant resolutions or other decisions that should have wide-ranging effects (which would largely destroy the purpose of an ITNR listing anyway). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 18:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The article is mostly tables & lists. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really a huge notable event and article mostly contains tables and such (very little prose). TwistedAxe   [contact]  21:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The G7 summit is listed as ITNR, which means that significance is presumed. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 01:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, didn't know that. Thanks for the info, cheers! TwistedAxe   [contact]  06:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose That doesn't look like an article in the correct shape to be on the front page. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose not really ITN-worthy, it's just a meeting, and the article contains little more than charts. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN/R, so significance is assumed with this. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article quality isn't there. i'll reevaluate article quality later. i do expect it to get better since there's a sea of opposes, here. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers to for bringing this out from ITNR obscurity. I wonder how many items like this languish in there which have not been posted in a while or whose notability does not seem apparent now. Gotitbro (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on significance per TwistedAxe, Kiril and 5426387, I really just don't feel this is an altogether significant event; the meaningfulness is now quite diminished than from years past. We're not providing a service to our readers through the inclusion of the summit. This item has been proposed for removal from ITN/R on WT:ITN. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I've !voted to remove from ITN/R, and there's no particular reason to post this one. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and remove from ITNR. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Bakhmut taken by Russian forces

 * Oppose and please close this before it turns into unproductive discussion that wastes time. We keep the ongoing item for a reason.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Close just close just close and stop listening to those people. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and closing immediately Probably not a good idea to listen to Russia and Prigozhin. Twistedaxe (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rick Hummel

 * Support acceptable. Seems to be a lot of general praise but not a lot explaining why.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is kind of on the verge of not being a stub. Other than that, the citings are okay but the article could use alot more work. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 04:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

San Salvador crowd crush

 * Oppose Too stubby for now. Reassess when more details of the circumstances are available.—Bagumba (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is currently at a Start class, as it was when it was first nominated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Stubby" ≠ rated a stub —Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Very little information in the article, currently no indication that it will ever meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. I was going to nominate this myself, but unfortunately after looking at the article's state, it's clear it isn't ready yet. Needs some work before it's ready, plus if the death toll doesn't rise too high then the notability could be questioned too. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Barcelona wins La Liga(s)

 * Oppose on article look. Too table-y, not text-y enough. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Same issues as the Premier League item below: wait for the season to actually finish and oppose on quality due to lack of referenced prose, and alt2 added that follows our standard phrasing. Also, ITNR is for La Liga, not the women's equivalent, so don't include that. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Very little prose, and if the tables were to be taken out of the article, it would no doubt be a stub. Article needs more work. Consider my support once article is expanded upon when it comes to prose. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

[Attention, please.] RD: Paul Desenne

 * Oppose Article is currently marked as a stub. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Being marked is different from being a stub. The article had nearly 2 KB of readable prose and over a dozen references in its nomination (as well as currently). The length and quality should be enough for its posting. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Marked it as a stub due to the article literally having no more than 10 lines worth of prose. Article needs major improvement before its ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This wikibio is long enough (300+ words of prose and thus no longer a stub), its formatting looks fine, there are footnotes where they are expected, and Earwig has no complaints. IMO, this is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support It’s just barely big enough to not be a stub & it’s well-referenced. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Man City wins Prem

 * Oppose for now - the linked article should be 2021–22 Premier League 2022–23 Premier League, but as usual that is not remotely ready yet. There is no prose update or indeed summary of the season as one would expect. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, do you mean 2022-23 article? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 22:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, silly me. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready - article is pretty bad currently. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article is not in a good state (and isn't even linked in the main blurb), prose is desperately needed, citations too, and the Premier League should probably not be the one bolded. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Very little prose in the article currently, mostly tables and such. Needs lots of work before it's ready. Twistedaxe (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wrong article linked for this. As for the correct one, it is not ready at all (I say as a Gooner). And Strong Oppose the alt blurb, it is "THE Premier League", never "English Premier League".  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the article isn't ready yet. It doesn't even say the Premier League has ended. Strong oppose for the alt blurb as well, it was never the English Premier League, just the Premier League. // <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 11:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait I don't see why this can't wait until next week, when the season will finish and there are likely to be more updates (especially to do with the relegation places, at least one of which is going to be decided next weekend). Otherwise, unless you semi-protect it, you're probably going to end up with an unstable article on the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Black Kite, just wait for the conclusion of the season and an article that would presumably have the needed updates to go along with it. I get the title has been clinched, but no reason to not wait. And Jalapeno, thats because the season has not ended, just Man City have clinched the title. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that we should wait until next week for the season to conclude. We post when the winner is known. It’s news now and won’t be in a week. Compare this to presidential elections: we post them when the winner is known, not when the person assumes office.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats posting an election, you dont post the results before the polls close even if the polling numbers are wildly skewed. But the article here depends on things that have not yet happened. It is definitely going to be changing, in not insignificant ways, between then and now. And we actually dont even post the results of an election until the page of the election is filled out completely. The US House race was pulled last time because some of the races were not called for months, even though the overall result was known. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think the information until the end of the season is relevant when the winner is already known, so we can post it when the article receives prose update elaborating how Manchester City won the title (no need to await content on the last week, which doesn’t impact the outcome of the season).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The ITN/R entry is "Premier League", not "Who wins the Premier League", so it doesn't matter when we post it as long as the update is sufficient. And yes, the last week will impact the outcome of the season, because it will decide the relegation places. Black Kite (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that’s the case, why we posted it when the winner was decided in the past and why you didn’t advocate to wait until the season ends? To put it simple, everyone knows what “Premier League” means as an ITNR item. I’m sure we’re not going to post the relegated teams. The same criterion didn’t apply when we posted the winning driver of the 2022 Formula One Championship on 12 October even though the winning constructor was decided later on and the season ended on 20 November.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To which the simple answer is - the article was of sufficient quality at that point and there was consensus to post it. The article has 7 days after 18:30 BST next Sunday (the end of the season) to be posted - there is no rush. Black Kite (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article lacks a prose update and shouldn’t be posted because of that, but I disagree that we should wait for the conclusion of the season to post it. If it gets improved by tomorrow, we’ll post it immediately.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would also be fine; I'm merely saying that there isn't a rush to do it. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article isn't great, and the main blurb doesn't even link it? (The alt blurb isn't better, no one calls it "English Premier League"...) Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's sometimes called the English Premier League in the US. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons. That isn't its name, however. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait for the season to finish, relegation & European places to be determined etc. Also oppose on quality - there needs to be some actual referenced prose in the article, summarising the events of the season. See 2018–19_Premier_League for an example. And finally, I've added an alt2 blurb, which follows our standard phrasing. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Amis

 * Oppose Early life and Early writing sections are nearly entirely unsourced, and there are a few CN tags in the career section. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, that is not the case. I don't see any in there, and the sections you mentioned are well-sourced. // <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 15:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They might not be tagged, but there are significant unsourced sections there. This is not close to being ready. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Amis was one of the most important and influential writers of his generation (regardless of what one thinks of him or his writing, headlines read: "era-defining British novelist"; "literary giant"; "Mick Jagger in literary form"; "Stylist extraordinaire"; "Witty, caustic, dazzling"; "he stamped his style over a generation of writers and readers"; etc.). I am not qualified to comment on the state or readiness of the article itself (in a technical sense with regard to WP:MOS or other policy re: main page nomination), however a cursory read shows it to be quite thorough and detailed. That his passing was marked in every major media outlet but not on this page strikes me as odd. If there are improvements to be made to the article, then it would seem that drawing attention to it here, with a very wide audience of community members, would help achieve this objective. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of work has now been done on this. Spicemix (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, two remaining s notwithstanding. Last chance, really, before Amis gets Jake-the-Pegged into oblivion. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jake the Peg (and its creator) may well deserve oblivion (or worse). Amis? Probably not – time will be the judge. However, we won't be able to run the clock backwards and undo his absence here (Time's Arrow notwithstanding). Clock is ticking. Pageviews since the announcement of his death would indicate that the general reader finds the subject worth pursuing. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Bibliography section needs sources or ISBNs for his works.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ISBNs done. Moscow Mule (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Article seems ready now. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree Spicemix (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rattan Lal Kataria

 * Oppose Article quality is not up to ITNRD standards. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This stubby wikibio currently has only 181 words of prose. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is a stub.   Lefcentreright     Discuss    17:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has been marked as a stub now. Needs work before it's ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kacper Tekieli

 * Support Article looks fine enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing and prose are sufficient and the article has been updated with info on the death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  There's an outstanding tag for the lead being too short.—Bagumba (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tag was removed, and is sparse but sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I added more text in the lead section. Fixer88 (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in a better condition now and is ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Booth

 * Support - Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is good.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 22:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have no better reason than the other supporters here, but I notice at the Jim Brown article that votes were counted, and this might help get this exceedingly obvious nomination posted. Please don't let it sit here ready to go for days as other recent non-American nominations have. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well cited and long enough for ITNRD. Marking as ready. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  HELLO!!!!  An American footballer was posted as an RD much faster than this. Brian Booth was an international in TWO sports. You will never convince me there isn't a US sports bias here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, we'll never convince you. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That might also be due to Brown being better well-known in general, including his involvement as a civil right activist? (Still sad that his activism wasn't even mentioned in the blurb tho...) Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Better well known globally? No. That would be wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page views, it seems Jim Brown is more well-known - |Jim_Brown Booth had about 6,000 views on the 20th, Brown about 300,000. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you check that view with the billion cricket fans in India? HiLo48 (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If he was really that popular, even if his fanbase was mostly in India (and I don't see why it would be there since he played in Australia) I would still expect there to be more than 0.02% of the views Brown got. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As an American you really should stop now. You clearly have no idea how international sport works, and are giving your countrymen a bad name. HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s time to stop, HiLo, before you end up breaking civility policies. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 10:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The small handful of ITN admins being busy is not a conspiracy. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. So what IS the explanation for American sports stars always being posted quickly? DON'T say better well known. That would be US-centrism, and wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, they are better well known, for starters. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless you have data at hand, my guess would be confirmation bias. You notice when it happens, you don't notice when it doesn't. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hasanuddin Murad

 * Support. Long enough, cited, updated. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ella Stack

 * Support. Everything is cited and it's been updated with her death. A few one-two sentence paragraphs, but not enough to hold back the article. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-cited and well-written article. Looks ready. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aase Foss Abrahamsen

 * Support. A bit on the short side, but long enough for ITNRD. Content is sourced, including her death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Marion Berry

 * Oppose B class article...and yet there's a complete lack of sources in the Early life section and some CN tags in the U.S. House of Representatives section. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to CN tag. TwistedAxe   [contact]  23:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tim Keller

 * Support Well written article. Looks ready. Twistedaxe (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks adequate, well cited. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Srnec (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Anarchyte  ( talk ) 16:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andy Rourke

 * Oppose. Needs additional sourcing. Twistedaxe (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support significant work on the article in last 24 hours. Ceoil (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of cn tags in the main prose. Discography is partially unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment as you can see I am tagged as a major updater so I won't cast a vote, but this looks good-ish to post. The only CN is on the subject of musical equipment, which is not my forte. If a page of this length and citation was on the main page and then got one CN tag over a minor issue, it wouldn't be pulled, would it? Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One CN tag wouldn't be an issue in this case. Mooonswimmer 00:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @ Unknown Temptation thanks for all the work this weekend. I removed the uncited stuff re gear; we can look it up later but dont want it to become an issue ino getting his passing on main page. To mention, as a bass player, Rourke was one of the most significant (and loved - he was always the "cool" Smith) English musicians of the last 50 years. RIP Andy. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The article is fully sourced. There are no tags. Looks ready. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Sam Zell

 * Still a CN tag in the Bibliography section. Oppose. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A single cn tag, especially such a minor one, should typically not hold up an article if the rest of it is fine (WP:ITNQUALITY), but regardless I have sourced it. Curbon7 (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I obviously have a conflict of interest being one of the people who updated this article with news of his death, but I would personally say the article is good enough to go out. -Asheiou   (they/them • talk)  00:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article is disorganized with a lot of short sections and one sentence paragraphs. Criticism sections are inappropriate, especially for biographies. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted blurb) Jim Brown

 * Support I've fixed up some of the article's quality issues, and some more could be fixed, but this looks good to go as of now. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb world famous figure, was active in several fields. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I did nominate the blurb, so my Support !vote doesn't count for that. Not sure if credit is given to separate people (one who nom'd the RD vs the blurb) but it doesn't truly matter. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb - a million percent, Jim Brown is or was iconic in several fields, and the blurb should mention civil rights icon. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If he was a civil rights icon, that should be a clear expanded section in the article, otherwise its burying the lede for all purposes. M asem (t) 20:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Our article about a Black American being shit is unsurprising, but there is no if. NYT headline on his death: Jim Brown, Football Great and Civil Rights Champion, Dies at 87. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:08, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when article fully updated; filmography needs references. Widely considered to be one of the best NFL players of all-time; major role in activism and film.  Spencer T• C 20:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, strong support RD Not notable enough to be a blurb, but he was an icon and definitely needs to be mentioned in RD. Twistedaxe (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb May have been one of the bests in the league, but nothing about any impact or legacy that we would normally look for blurbs. Article is also in proseline in a lot of places and would not represent our best work. RD is sufficient but it still can be improved. --M asem (t) 20:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The article has been improved significantly to include his civil rights work, and the death section has some aspect of his legacy. I would suggest some of the Accusations section could be cut down (one paragraph has very minor charges or accusations that went nowhere, compared to the other accusations made). --M asem (t) 16:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article does a very poor job of explaining why Jim Brown is blurbworthy. The article makes zero mention of his activism and the section about his NFL career is so short. The section about his acting career is much longer than the section about his football career. Compare to other legendary NFL players like Dick Butkus and Johnny Unitas. Those players have narrative/chronological sections written for their NFL careers, not a slipshod arrangement of facts.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in re: his civil rights activism. It does a great job of explaining why he's a legendary athlete, but not why he's important off the field. I would consider supporting a blurb if that were improved. Kicking222 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb: article has been updated to include civil rights activism. He was always blurbworthy to me, just needed a better article.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 16:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when ready. One of the greatest figures in football history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle - Jim Brown nearly destroyed his long-term career prospects as an athlete in order to take a stand for civil rights along with Muhammad Ali and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, in an era where civil rights was very much a fraught topic. His story goes well beyond just being a football player, and his legacy will outlast him beyond his death. This is the sort of person that the sui generis transformative blurb criteria was made for. That being said -- God, it's dreadful and almost criminal that the article doesn't reflect any of this. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Take another look, I added a good amount of detail related to his Civil Rights work.  Spencer T• C 04:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb on principle, weak oppose on quality the Pele of American football; nothing more needs to be said. However, his film career section is in need of referencing; while not what made him famous, the full article should be at front-page quality, and it isn't. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality After giving the article a quick look, the article is in poor quality w/ sections missing sources or have no sources at all. All sourcing issues must be fixed first. Once it's fixed, I would support a blurb given his influential career. Support blurb Top of his field, influential football player and article in good shape. Good work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle based on WaltCip's poignant explanation. Curbon7 (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, , sourcing issues have been fixed. , , , , I have added a section to his activity regarding civil rights. Apologies for all the pings! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per Masem. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If being the greatest college football player of all-time, one of the greatest professional football players of all time, one of the greatest lacrosse players of all time, being an important civil rights activist, and being a notable actor, all at the same time, is not blurb-worthy, then what is? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @BeanieFan11 Darts. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * remains a figure of very minor impact and international relevance. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A "very minor figure"? Are you absolutely kidding me? Brown is very arguably the greatest American football player ever, not to mention he had a huge impact on civil rights, was a notable actor, and is considered one of the best lacrosse players ever as well. That does not meet any definition of "minor"! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Greatest”? Come on. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jim Brown is regarded as one of the greatest NFL players ever (Brady too, - its probably Brady as the best QB, Brown the best RB, the two most important positions) and the greatest college football player ever, hence I said "greatest American football" rather than greatest NFL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per, it takes much more than a quarterback to win a football game. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Masem now supports a blurb, by the way. The Kip (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb maybe include his lacrosse experience as well. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 23:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. Can't believe this is even being discussed. Blurbs are only for the highest echelons, the "Thatcher and Mandela" standard, and this guy who's had no lasting impact is nowhere near meeting it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 05:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a surprise. WP:ITNRD only says:   There is no guidance about "Thatcher and Mandela".—Bagumba (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RD ready, mulling blurb Sourcing issues resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Level-4 vital. For comparison, Doyle Brunson is level 5, Margaret Thatcher level 4 and Nelson Mandela level 3. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without going to look those up, many level numbers are made-up nonsense. Also, important people in niche fields may have higher levels that internationally-known names in wide fields (i.e. politics). Black Kite (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The level numbers are an exponent so that level 4 means that it's in the most vital 104 (10,000) articles. Looking at the record for 2022, level 4 deaths always got a blurb while level 5 was more patchy.  Those level 4s were Queen Elizabeth II, Pelé, Mikhail Gorbachev, Lata Mangeshkar, Sidney Poitier, Shane Warne and Jean-Luc Godard.  Brown was both a sports star and a movie star and is comparable with both Poitier and Pelé. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew, you’re right on article’s overall quality, but please take a look at the quality of the death update and compare it to all those people you’re mentioning. I don’t see a reason to post a blurb for someone whose death has received a one-sentence update in the “Personal life” section. That’s the minimum update for an RD, and even many RDs have had longer updates. I advertised this problem on the talk page some time ago, but it was subsequently archived without any resolution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We would be blurbing this because Brown was a "major figure" per WP:ITNRD, not because the details of their death were particular remarkable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think posting a “major figure” should bypass quality. We’re an encyclopedia and a quality update should be the starting point. Moreover, it’s debatable how much someone is a major figure if the community isn’t interested to add more information about their death.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per Recent Death "This article is currently being heavily edited because its subject has recently died." I expected that the article would be expanded and this has been done – see Jim_Brown which includes tributes from Obama and others.  Kiril Simeonovski's objection has therefore been addressed. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See below. The death update had been expanded and I had already changed my vote before you wrote this.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose blurb I was looking for the “Death”/“Later life and death” section before realising that there’s a one-sentence update in “Personal life”. That tells a lot why this person doesn’t deserve a blurb. Compare this to Pelé or Shane Warne to get an idea of how an update of the death of a sportsperson who merits a blurb should look.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb This is the type of routine death that is best suited for RD. Blurbs are not and should not be given to talented sportspeople simply because they do/say a few things here or there about social issues. I would presume that when Adam Goodes, Craig Foster, Michael Long, Nicky Winmar and Ashleigh Gardner die, that people have the common sense not to nominate them for blurbs. Chrisclear (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He did more that just "a few things". Most stories are leading with his activism. For example: Jim Brown, the legendary American footballer who became a Hollywood action hero and civil rights activist, has died at the age of 87. (BBC)—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the same is likely to be true of obituaries about Goodes, Foster and Long when they die. And at that time, people will have the common sense not to nominate them for blurbs. And in the unlikely situation that they are nominated for a blurb, I find it difficult to believe that Americans will support a blurb for someone they have not heard of. Furthermore, as a general observation about people who have died, the significance of their accomplishments are frequently embellished/exaggerated when compared with living people who have done similar things. Chrisclear (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems it doesn't matter that your comment about "a few things" is wrong. Which is fine, but perhaps just be upfront and say you don't trust any writeups on sportspeople's deaths. Period. —Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Shane Warne and Lata Mangeshkar got posted despite probably being known to about .1% of Americans, so I’m not so sure your argument holds up. The Kip (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about this, but all of India knows both, which outweighs your argument by roughly 1.1 billion people. Coulda chosen better examples (but then again only 30% of Americans know that Jefferson was a president). AryKun (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @AryKun I wouldn't say something from 2007 is a really true depiction of Americans in 2023, but be my guest. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RD posted, currently unclear blurb consensus - leaving nomination open to allow a more obvious consensus for the blurb to develop. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst there's a paragraph on his civil rights activism, there's no mention whatsoever of it in the lead paragraph, 80% of which is about his football career with 2 lines about his acting. Outside of North America Brown was known by many people as an actor who used to be a footballer, not the other way round. Black Kite (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the lead now, last paragraph. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up that misleading claim, here was the Death section of Warne's article when it was posted. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was in much better shape than this one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it had three sentences? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, because it included relevant information on the reactions by famous people. Also, if you take a look how the article progressed in the next few hours after being posted, there are more relevant details on the funeral and memorial services. As I noted in a comment above, if the community isn’t interested to add more information about someone’s death, then it’s debatable how much that person can be considered a major figure. If you want to demonstrate it, please expand the update with more information on the funeral, reactions and memorial services, and I shall re-consider my vote (my vote is chiefly based on quality, not that he wasn’t significant). We’re an encyclopedia and quality is what matters the most.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, see Jim Brown. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Thanks for your work. Support blurb as a result of the expansion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was 1 of the best football players of all-time (& apparently lacrosse too), a famous movie star & a notable civil rights activist. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Nothing here to show that he was more significant than many others the didn't get blurbs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He was as, or more, significant as Shane Warne, Maradona and so on. It's this same reflexive oppose any American blurb BS that always happens. And if there was any consistency on admins ignoring the clearl IJDLI votes this would have been posted hours ago. Thanks for again proving this page's worth. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you just say he was more significant than Maradona? I'm going to try to unread what I just read. It would be interesting if you had a little more international sensitivity. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes lol. That you lack the sensitivity you demand of others is an interesting bit of lack of self-awareness, but yes Jim Brown was certainly more influential than Maradona. Maradona was a soccer star, the end. Jim Brown was a football star, movie star, civil rights leader, influences an entire generation of Black athletes in the US. So yes, more significant than Maradona. You, of all people, pretending like you have an international sensitivity when nearly every contribution here is to oppose anything American, can shove it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are oposing "anything American" probably because almost all nominations related to the USA are the result of a closed mind to Americanness and a nationalistic view of Wikipedia, fact that provokes the nomination of anything you read in the "American" media "just to see if it sticks". You don't have to be a genius to come to this conclusion. But hey, if you followed me with a little attention you would see that I object also when it comes to events in other countries. Let me know what you think when you do. Cheers.
 * PD: few sportsmen in history will be able to say that they have had an international and intergenerational impact like Maradona or Pelé. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jim Brown's generational impact is not in dispute except in the minds of European Wikipedia editors. And his impact is not limited to how well he played a sport, in case you missed that minor bit of news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb In line with my increasing mindset that no death warrants a blurb except where the death (not the deceased) is a news item (in which case, normal blurb nom with required article), or if a good part of the world is affected (i.e. treating it like a news item; think leading politicians or, yes, sports stars global enough that monuments are lit up and moments of silence are held; any death that warrants official mourning I would consider). As far as I can tell, Jim Brown's death isn't either of those. Very important person - within a sport and a movement that had regional impact, it has to be acknowledged - but RD exists for a reason. If we continue having ITN death coverage in increasingly tiered ways, we might as well scrap RD. As a side note, the US/not-US thing needs to be settled, but not in jingoistic arguments every time there's a related nom, it probably needs a proper talkpage discussion. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb those suggesting a pro-American bias need to check the record. We posted Shane Warne and Lata Mangeshkar with barely a peep of opposition even though <1% Americans had heard of them. I tend to hold my breathe on such noms because I am WP:AGF that those from their home countries know better. Americans never get that benefit of the doubt here. Everyone feels justified in weighing in because they are vaguely aware of him. Brown should be blurbed based on his football career alone. He was universally considered the greatest of all time for decades after his retirement, and still ranks in the top 3-5. That's to say nothing of his post-football impacts. He is infinitely more important to his sport than Maradona was to his, to say nothing of Warne. This is embarrassing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Implying that Maradona and Warnie aren't considered among the greatest sportsmen in their own sports is the dumbest argument I've ever seen, period. AryKun (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That last sentiment was completely unnecessary to your argument, and has to be demonstrably incorrect based on the godlike worship of Maradona and Warne. That you decided to include it shows a far too POINTy view.
 * I won't say anything on your !vote because your reasons are your reasons, that's fine. But I will add that, you're right there's much less benefit of the doubt towards US-centric items that come up: this is because the relationship of US culture with the rest of the world is such that non-Americans have heard of most important US cultural things, while Americans remain largely ignorant to what is important everywhere else. It's a strange one, but, again Jim Brown was massive in two fields - American football and US civil rights. Two fields that are massive in US sport and in US history. Two fields that are indeed acknowledged as important, but have no effect on people, everywhere else. Whether people think that warrants a blurb? Well, it's clearly debatable. Kingsif (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per GreatCaesarsGhost. We’re trying to avoid “pro-American bias” so much that we’re flying awfully close to anti-American bias instead; in particular I agree with the point on Warne and Mangeshkar, who both received a fraction of the opposition a similarly-famous American would (and is, at the moment. The Kip (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's hugely disappointing, though not entirely surprising, that there are Wikipedians who seem to be ignorant (perhaps blissfully, but nevertheless) of the contentious history of civil rights in the United States and how extraordinarily tense it was in the late 1960s, and are instead choosing to weigh in with their highly limited and subjective viewpoints. I remember getting similarly upset when we snubbed Bill Russell, despite the fact that we have chosen to blurb Shane Warne without any apparent rancor. I'm continually led to believe that we ought to demolish the "transformative figure" criterion altogether, since it's being used as a selective cudgel to squash out the posting of individuals who otherwise would have been important within and even outside their specific field. Still, I hope that after and despite all of this, that ITN and Wikipedia's Main Page can still be considered colorblind. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Didn’t you oppose the Russell blurb? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I was upset at the rhetoric that certain users used in denying Russell a blurb, when we would never see that same rhetoric being used for denying Shane Warne a blurb. I'm aggravated about the double standard that exists. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because we do not support Brown's candidacy does not mean that we ignore or belittle the civil rights movements of the 1960s in the United States. Let's not get things mixed. But welcome to the world: the United States is not the only country in the world that has had momentous civil rights movements, democratic transitions or contentious  stages in its history that we should be very aware of and consider.  _-_Alsor (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the hyperbole used to downplay Brown's impact is unfortunate. However, I think that Walt is also in the comment engaging in hyperbole, as you point out, by suggesting that users !voting are trying to diminish the US civil rights movement its very self. As Walt points out, it was massive in the US in the 1960s - as Alsor points out, that's a limited part of world history. Other thoughts: I think all candidates should be judged on their own merit. I think that while it may be true that to suggest the US civil rights movement was monumental in world history is to equate world history with US history, that it is up to individual opinion whether someone so influential in US history is blurbworthy for that sphere of contribution. Less hyperbole on all sides is what is needed, I think. Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact Warne was added fairly easily while Russell wasn’t blurbed and Brown might not me should be the ultimate proof that the issue of “American bias” on here is hilariously overstated. The Kip (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I might be beating a dead horse at this point, but ITN is WP:OR central, and it's going to keep causing serious discrepancies like this until ITN and sitewide policy can be reconciled. I still think that an article about the death itself (think Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II) is a good standard, because that has criteria governed by an actual sitewide guideline. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. I was inclined to oppose, but supporters have made the case that this is consistent with past practice. Srnec (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurb. As much as I wouldn't put Brown on the level of Bill Russell (who should have been posted), and I believe his civil rights impact probably comes up short of the not-blurbed Harry Belafonte, I think Brown's combined impact in several spheres makes him a worthwhile enough candidate for posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted blurb appears to be about 2:1 in favor of a blurb, by the numbers alone. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not totally sold on the blurb (his death isn't a notable event in itself the way some deaths are), but if it is blurbed then "civil rights activist" should appear somewhere in it. On a related note, it's shocking that his article doesn't go more in depth on this aspect of his life. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't really care about whether this gets blurbed or not, but to all the Americans angry about the "anti-American bias" we're displaying here: the reason that cricket and football blurbs get through easier is because, amazingly, these two sports have 5–8 times the fans that American football and baseball have. Stop complaining about us prioritizing the stuff that more people care about. AryKun (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because soccer or cricket blurbs get by faster doesn't mean that we have to hold up football or baseball blurbs. (Side note: how many of those "5–8 times the fans" of soccer/cricket are both native English speakers AND frequent readers of the English Wikipedia?) Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm an American angry about the American bias that ITN has. Between this and the Dominion Voting Systems blurb, it's clear that ITN is looking more like USA Today's front page than something representative of the world. I won't deny Brown's significance on civil rights, but his life is better known as a fullback. Out of some of the death blurbs that we've had—Mikhail Gorbachev and Elizabeth II coming to mind from just this last year—the figures in these blurbs are globally recognized. I would be hard-pressed to find someone who shares little interest in American football to recognize who Brown is. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "This is what people care about" isn't usually given much weight in Wikipedia discussions. That's why WP:N sets objective standards, WP:ATA has multiple entries about this sort of argument, and even WP:ITN explicitly discourages !votes based on geographic region. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull blurb - 99% of people outside the US haven't heard of him. He can't be compared on the same scale as Pelé, who was world famous. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a Canadian, I admit that I can't recall ever having heard of Jim Brown prior to yesterday. That being said, I don't think a lack of prior familiarity on my part indicates that someone isn't iconic or world-famous. Sometimes I'm just less informed than other people, for one reason or another. Kurtis (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Please do not… Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.” The Kip (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting blurb support and suggest close - I read the article carefully and don't see any quality or updating issues. That leaves ITN-noteworthiness as the point of contention. In my view, Brown is worthy for many if not most of the reasons supporters gave above. Since continuing discussion here is likely to generate more heat than light along the usual lines by the usual parties, I strongly suggest this successful blurb nomination be closed, and further debate, if actually needful, be conducted on the ITN Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support blurb Issues resolved, incredibly notable figure in sports and US history. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He's notable in one country only; the vast majority of the world hasn't heard of him & has no interest in his sport. His acting & activism were also entirely domestic. There are hundreds of sportspeople who are far more well-known than him. Jim Michael 2 (talk)


 * Whats your point? I have zero interest in cricket, and so does most of the world, and Shane Warne was posted, and that was without the activism or the fame from a groundbreaking acting career. So what if you or anybody else does not care about his sport? You havent heard of him? Click the link and learn something then. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Lata Mangeshkar was posted despite being a major figure in effectively only one country as well. The Kip (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Cricket is popular in several countries; American football is popular in one. Black US history only; he didn't have any involvement in ending apartheid or the Cold War. His acting career is not well-known in the US & is unknown outside it. The four current blurbs are a national political crisis & election, two disasters & the natural death of an octogenarian whom the vast majority of people in the world have never heard of. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Football is actually popular in multiple countries, and even then, so what? Especially given the fact that over 40% of the pageviews of the English Wikipedia are that one country, over 4x the number of number two on that list. The vast majority people of the world have never heard of Shane Warne either, but again why would that matter at all? And beyond that, youre basing this entire argument on your own ignorance and assuming "the vast majority" is just as ignorant. I didnt realize propagating ignorance was in our mission statement. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep blurb Despite not being American or a fan of American football, I immediately recognized his name. He comes up very quickly when reading about Black history or Muhammad Ali. Connor Behan (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles Stenholm

 * Weak support Like nom pointed out, needs source work but other than that it looks ready. Twistedaxe (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too much unsourced content. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Montana TikTok ban

 * Oppose firstly it's subnational, secondly even if it's a national ban, it's still only one company. Banedon (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Not major and could be challenged. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is a stub with very little information. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Subnational stub that may or may not have any major impact on anyone. Pass. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a company getting banned from a single state, the article is a stub, and it's from a single state, not an entire nation. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Not only is this subnational news, it's also heavily americentric. Not alot of people outside of the US care if one US state ban TikTok. From a Wikipedia perspective, the article is ineligible to be on ITN due to it being a stub aswell as not having much prose. Article needs major improvement. Twistedaxe (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. - ITN/C voting guidelines - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't bite, that "rule" is not absolute, and I save myself from explaining something that is obvious to many editors. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not opposing solely based off the fact it's completely irrelevant outside of the United States, but also because it's a stub. And like others have pointed out, it really is irrelevant even outside of Montana itself. Maybe if the ban reaches a national-level it would be alot more notable, but for it to be 1 US state, of which not too many look likely to follow in Montanta's steps, this becomes even less relevant and appropriate to post. Please read through thoroughly and carefully why I opposed. Twistedaxe (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The banning of a single app is hardly of note especially if the same app has already been restricted in different ways in different jurisdictions. Gotitbro (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose so what? Really irrelevant outside the small Montana. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If a whole country banned it I could see the relevance. A state with around 0.3% of the US population?  I think not. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alicia Dussán de Reichel

 * Support. Length and sourcing look good. Career section could use some subheadings. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ready to go Looks good.
 * _-_Alsor (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pale Male

 * Weak support Article looks fine except for some unsourced statements in certain sections. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to citations. Which is unfortunate, articles like this give some variety to the main page. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 00:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks ready now. I have fixed the citation issues. Thriley (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Floods in Italy

 * Support: In essence, also a story of climate change ironically halting a gas-guzzling festival. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Can we please decide on an article to bold? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: A disaster with several deaths and widespread damage, due to heavy rains and climate change, which also caused the cancelation of important events like the Formula One GP. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Widely reported in the news, 11 deaths. Heythereimaguy (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - widespread news. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update The latest reports such as this indicate that the area affected includes other countries across the Adriatic including Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The weather is affecting the broader region indeed, I suggest expanding the article. In Slovenia and Croatia at least, this has been top news for a couple of days already. Tone 11:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the floods have spread to Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, causing similar damages and disruptions, but we need to document it somewhere. I’m unsure if a new article should be created or this one to get expanded.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support As an Italian myself, I definitely support this entry, but I would just re-phrase the blurb slightly, since the region has been hit by multiple floods and suffered several deaths among civilians. Oltrepier (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t have time since I am at work, but could someone please update the info box to the new one since floods is deprecated? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 10:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried but the template appears broken :/ Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, and support update mentioning the impact in other Adriatic countries. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 11:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Crap, I'm trying to fix the new template ASAP. Feel free to re-revert to the old one in the meanwhile Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed! @Hurricane Noah @Stephen the new template is there Chaotic Enby (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - not sure I would include mention of the Grand Prix myself. The big story here is the floods and the deaths, we wouldn't be posting this if it was only about a F1 cancellation... &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the grand prix, it is a minor story in the big picture. Tone 14:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the discussion below, I've re-added the F1 mention for now until a clearer consensus emerges. Feel free to remove it again if there's more support. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 15:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the specification of Emilia Romagna important to the blurb? Italy isn't big enough to justify such a precise location. We didn't specify that Mocha will hit (for example) Chittagong Division in Bangladesh, etc. so I see no need to specify which region of Italy this is impacting. Also interested in the above comments that it is affecting other neighboring countries on the Adriatic - if that is the case (idk about the subject) then we should change "Emilia-Romagna region of Italy" to "Italy, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slovenia" or something like that. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * …specifying Emilia-Romagna is important because that’s where the floods are happening. What? The Kip (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there isn’t a discussion of the effects on other countries in any article, so it doesn’t seem appropriate to put that in the blurb right now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull of Grand Prix - Firstly, one dude in a discussion with nearly 10 commenters doesn't like something and that is apparently enough to warrant removal after less than an hour? Additionally, much of the coverage surrounding the flood mentions the grand prix cancelation (e.g, F1 Cancels Emilia-Romagna Grand Prix Amid Floods in Italy [NYT] - Exceptional rains in drought-struck Italy kill 5 and cancel Formula One Grand Prix [NBC] - Exceptional rains in drought-struck Italy kill 5 and cancel Formula One Grand Prix [Reuters]). I support keeping the floods in since that's a major story regarding the flood itself (hell, there's a reason why a quarter of the subject article is devoted to it). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 14:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was originally throwing my support behind the guys choosing not to put the Grand Prix in the blurb. However, Knight's point is pretty strong (and I myself first heard of the floods from the cancellation of the Grand Prix.) If most of the coverage is, while still focused on the deaths, injuries, and damage, centered on the race being cancelled, I find that to be good enough reasoning to blurb the GP in particular. Then again, F1 fan bias, perhaps. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support pull of Grand Prix: Most articles only mention the cancellation of the Grand Prix in like one to two sentences. Out of Knight's examples above, the only one that goes in depth is the New York Times link, but that's because that article is from the sports section. The New York Times article written for the European news section of the paper only has three sentences about the race out of approximately 55 sentences. Same with most articles about the flood (BBC: two sentences; RTÉ/Agence France Presse: one sentence; Reuters: three sentences; New York Times: three sentences; NBC/Associated Press: one sentence; The Guardian: zero sentences, The Hindu: one sentence). Just a few examples, but it seems clear that most articles just add the Grand Prix as a passing mention. This would be akin to posting about the Coldplay concert in Houston being canceled because of Hurricane Harvey .  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think it's a somewhat different situation here. Houston is a big city that a lot of readers have heard of, and concerts are something that happen pretty frequently, thus all that's needed for a hook is "Houston is hit by Hurricane Harvey causing (insert damages here)." However, the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy is an area not that many readers outside of Europe (or Italy, maybe), have heard of. Meanwhile, Formula 1 is a series that's gained worldwide popularity. Tagging the Grand Prix there gives people a bit more of an interest, because it's an area they wouldn't otherwise bother with. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I gave it a bit of thought and then realized Houston is probably well known just in America, and not in the rest of the world. Same goes for Emilia-Romagna, but I think the same logic is usable when I think about it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the location can be contextualized from the Emilia-Romagna link. The Grand Prix link isn't necessary for that.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pull of Grand Prix as the less-major aside about the race is likely to force out (per WP:ITNBALANCE) more major recent items like the cyclone and Thai election.—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The bottom boundary of DYK and OTD is not ITN's problem. The idea that we should sacrifice our content about world events for a minor change to the cosmetic appearance of other sections is bizarre.  DYK has been running two sets a day lately and we shouldn't be micro-managing our entries to match whatever quirky stuff they happen to run in each batch. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose pull There seems to be a flood of floods around the world as a result of cyclones and the spring thaw – Alaska, Europe, Somalia, &c. – and we're already blurbing another weather item. The cancellation of the Imola Grand Prix has gotten lots of mainstream coverage and headlines and so seems to be a distinctive feature of this particular incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull of Grand Prix It’s arguably been the most internationally-noted aspect of the floods in news media. The Kip (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull of Grand Prix Kind of the main hook here; otherwise it's just a flood, and not one on an order of magnitude greater than a flood in any other part of the world that might simply get ignored. If there's a desire to shorten the blurb, trim the "widespread destruction" part, which is totally redundant and needless, and just have "...causes 15 deaths and cancels the...". That a flood is making headlines implies widespread destruction; a flood that does not do this is not a notable flood, just a flood in a floodplain minding its own business. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think if there is a strong indication that climate change is involved it should be mentioned. I think it also in favor of publishing the news about Climate change and El Nino that I has proposed in this day. Especially as the story has "to be continue": according to a research El nino itself became strongly due to climate change. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral WRT to whether or not the Grand Prix should be pulled, but I'd support getting rid of the "widespread disruption" part. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pull of Grand Prix for reasons stated in my reply to Knight. I'm just trying to make it easier to get a head count with this if one does occur. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Grand Prix - an entertainment event is cancelled in light of damaging floods and deaths. It is absolutely unnecessary to call out one event. If it postposted an election for the region, that might be something. --M asem (t) 15:11, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Grand Prix - we would never post this race otherwise, and it is far from leading coverage of the damage so as to merit the call out here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Grand Prix it's not that relevant in the context of a dramatic event. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Grand Prix already. What are we waiting for? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Grand Prix for the obvious reasons noted above. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * consensus seems more clear now.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) New Prime Minister of Afghanistan

 * Weak oppose Oppose Temporary acting Prime Minister, but no definitive change in leadership yet. Not too sure about the implications, waiting to see how it unfolds. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, the article on Mohammed Abdul Kabir definitely needs to be expanded, provided we can find enough info. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: Apparently the PM has no actual powers, being under the Supreme Leader, so notability isn't there, plus the article still isn't great... Chaotic Enby (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs some expansion. Standard scattershot "small list of random facts" and lacks a clear narrative describing his career.  If someone could clean up the target article and expand it significantly I could support posting it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've starting putting it up-to-date (at least adding the fact that he became acting PM again), I'll see what I can do in the evening! Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose strongly on quality and weakly on notability. Will need to see this pan out for more details, but my goodness that bolded article is of nowhere near good enough quality for the Main Page. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose any leadership change outside the premier executive (absent exceptional circumstances).   GreatCaesarsGhost   12:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose so, the Prime minister of a country changed temporarily, this is not really ITN-material. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;Article quality notwithstanding, the prime minister of Taliban-led Afghanistan is subordinate to the supreme leader. Per GreatCaesarsGhost, I would only support blurbing someone occupying a lower office under exceptional circumstances. Kurtis (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: S. P. Hinduja

 * Support Article is well cited and is large enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well cited with lots of sources. Well written article too. Twistedaxe (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Guillermo Lasso dissolves National Assembly

 * Comment Which part of ITN/R does this fall under? --  AxG /  ✉  16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the news. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ITN/R so I removed that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on quality and significance. I could see 2023 Ecuadorian general election as a better target article, but it would need some expansion. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Pretty extraordinary constitutional event. They need to close that wide-open loophole. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought Ecuador used a Presidential system. Dissolving the legislature generally isn't something the President can do. Strange. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It comes at a price: he could lose his own job. See muerte cruzada. Big gamble, given his current approval ratings. Moscow Mule (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Not ITN/R, but still an unprecedented and concerning action. IMHO, the general election shouldn't be the main target article as it hasn't taken place yet. I'll take a look to see if I can do anything to improve these articles. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Major news, article looks good. --2601:249:8E00:420:6996:69BB:39C2:F6BD (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be in good shape, topic is being covered by news sources. Checks every box for me. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Weak Oppose In principle I think this is an ITN level event. But the coverage is extremely thin and we do not typically post events that don't have their own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Created 2023 Ecuadorian political crisis. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - I'd only wholeheartedly support posting if it had its own article. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Created 2023 Ecuadorian political crisis TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No article, no post. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Created 2023 Ecuadorian political crisis. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - the article on Lasso, which is what is bolded here, has sufficient updates to post. Would be posted within hours of occuring in any European country. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt over original now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 20:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that's why Lasso is the target article because the event mainly surrounds his actions rather than the impeachment itself. It didn't make the 2023 general election article the target article because we'll probably end up posting that page in its own right once the election concludes. Lasso's article covers all the events before, during and after the impeachment inquiry as well, that's why I made it the target article. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Impeachment of Guillermo Lasso would be a good article ultimately. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that it hasn't happened - so what: an article on an impeachment that never was? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Created a better target article 2023 Ecuadorian political crisis. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Bio works as a target here (there is no mandate for separate articles) and the news is significant. Gotitbro (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now It doesn't look like there's enough of an update in Lasso's article. Support The new article is ITN-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support can always bold more than one article. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A dissolution of parliament is not itself significant enough. The circumstances here might allow for a quality article on the whole affair that would push it over the threshold. But on balance of significance and the quantity/quality of the update, it doesn't get there for me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Created an individual article 2023 Ecuadorian political crisis and I would argue this dissolution of parliament is significant enough as it is the first time in the country's history in which it happened under the constitutional measure muerte cruzada. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think bolding Lasso's article is reasonable, unless we want to make a specific article for this muerte cruzada, that would make sense as well. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment w:es has a newly created es:Crisis política en Ecuador de 2023 (and it's not too shabby). If anyone's in the mood for some translation. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. 2023 Ecuadorian political crisis TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stout work. See you there. Moscow Mule (talk)
 * Support I think Lasso's article being the target one makes sense since the news is more about his decision to invoke muerte cruzada. Article looks good too. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. AltBlurb? The election article isn't main-page ready, but it has to be there, I suppose. Moscow Mule (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Now that it has its own article. -Ad Orientem (talk)
 * Posted Stephen 01:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: "Superstar" Billy Graham

 * Support there's still some bits that need a cite, but it's mostly fully cited. Updated.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Pro wrestling legend and icon. The article looks acceptable. --Mann Mann (talk) 11:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Each paragraph had a source, but a lot of citation needed's now tagged in between.—Bagumba (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Question How many of those tags were necessary, and how much was just tag bombing of sourced material? Is it really necessary to repeat the same citation in every sentence, or even multiple times within a sentence? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider that almost each paragraph had an ending source, but did not support all of the preceding material, and two reviewers deemed it ready before. Yes, I think it was necessary. Would people do unnecessary things? If consecutively tagged sentences can be sourced by the same reference, then one citation would be sufficient to address it. —Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of cn tags need resolving. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fantastic now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Over the past couple days, I've fixed some of the sourcing issues with this. Would you mind taking another peek at this, User:Jayron32 and User:Bagumba? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still outstanding are new tags: five citation neededs and three failed verifications.  Most I tagged just by seeing diff of the changes since the original tags Unfortunately, some tags were removed without supplying a new source, and I double-checked that its not supported.  Feel free to supply supporting quotes in the talk page if I just flat out missed something. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Lucas Jr.

 * Oppose Article is orange tagged + some unsourced paras in the Contributions section. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Time to re-review? -- PFHLai (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Updates done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets homepage / RD hygiene expectations. Ktin (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Lucas critique' has no references. Stephen 04:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Stephen - thanks. I think an IP editor might have added those two sentences. Removed them. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can an admin have a look at this one? This goes stale in a couple of hours. Ktin (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for ITNRD. Marking as ready. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted --M asem (t) 00:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bill Perkins (politician)
Sorry, I didn't see this. Wrong date, and a former start of the article, nominated now on 15 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Mies
German sociology professor, pioneer for women's position in society, studied in India first. Article completely transformed by SusunW. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is still feverishly working on it, trying to remove the huge section of OR and replace it with scholarly reviews of her work. SusunW (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's mostly done. Need some clean up on the lede and citation of the awards. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 04:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ralph Lee

 * Oppose - large portions are unsourced. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Too much footnote-deficient prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Robert Lucas Jr.

 * Oppose Article is orange tagged + some unsourced paras in the Contributions section. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Time to re-review? -- PFHLai (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Updates done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography. Meets homepage / RD hygiene expectations. Ktin (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 'Lucas critique' has no references. Stephen 04:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Stephen - thanks. I think an IP editor might have added those two sentences. Removed them. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can an admin have a look at this one? This goes stale in a couple of hours. Ktin (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for ITNRD. Marking as ready. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Thai general election

 * Support I see nothing wrong with this article either. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks ready. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 22:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. The Kip (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now The "Leading up to the election" section is orange-tagged and there's a cn tag in the "Results" section. Once those problems are resolved, I'd prefer the alt blurb since it's mentioned in the article that the 2 largest opposition parties have agreed that they want to form a coalition govt. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Blaylockjam10 Additional refs have been added to the section.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article does need a bit of updates and tweaks, but other than that it's good to go. Tofusaurus (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support No tags, the article looks good. I'd prefer the alternative blurb too. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, Looks good to me. Nascar9919 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II General election results are ITNR. Breadth and sourcing is fine. The presumed prime minister change can be posted later as another ITNR item. Prefer Alt II, as the surprising upstart Move Forward Party should remain in the blurb, even after the leader's picture eventually gets bumped.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Marked ready—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Will add pic when commons protection passes. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where's the support for Altblurb? I haven't seen that much detailed blurb posted for any other country's election. 182.190.197.37 (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems on par with Sweden's.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba Where in the article does it say anything about "an anti-military junta coalition"? 182.190.197.37 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your objection was the level of detail. That one uses the same amount of detail.  Before you just stated there, you never mentioned any objection to the phrase "an anti-military junta coalition", merely that other blurbs hadn't had as much detail.  The Sweden post has a similar amount of detail.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a related discussion at WP:ERRORS about "anti-military junta". —Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Turkish general election

 * Oppose good faith nom - WP:ITNELECTIONS mentions "the results of general elections..." The election is still ongoing and we should thus wait until the final round. Also, from my understanding, there is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for this (i.e, there was only one nom for the French election last year despite there being two rounds) and first rounds not being posted in the past (IIRC). - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 11:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This event is ITNR as the "general election" results are known (or will be shortly). The presidential runoff is technically NOT ITN/R, but the succession would be.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Major story. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article has essentially no prose about the election itself. If this is important enough to post, it would have been important enough to write a significant narrative about.  There's basically nothing there.  Would support if someone fixed that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the second round is done and the official winner is declared. Twistedaxe (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * General election is actually completed, and the second round of the presidential election will be done in 2 weeks. Erdoğan getting below 50% for the first time in the last 20 years is major news. DigitalDasein (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would suggest adding that to the blurb if it's that important, then. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The source cited in the nomination says 49.24% at one point but 49.50% at another, while other sources are saying 49.51%. I'd rather not post the number (after all the final results are due May 19th, these results are preliminary) when (more like if given the precedent for two-round elections) this item is posted. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 16:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait. A runoff has been called. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for the second round winner to be announced. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tables should supplement prose, not replace it. Will support if the article is expanded. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We are not posting half-completed elections. Gotitbro (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Are the parliamentary elections worth posting, even though the presidential election is not complete? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Quality aside, the election is listed as ITNR so the significance is assumed. Anyone wished to invoke IAR or argue that the nominated event does not meet the definition of a general election as per ITNR is free to do so. But opposition solely on significance ground could (and likely will) be discounted.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and recommend re-nomination when runoff is completed. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Propose ALT4 based on ALT1 and focused solely on parliamentary elections. Presidential election shouldn't be posted until the runoff. The Kip (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb 4. Although run concurrently, the parliamentary and presidential elections are separate and it's therefore appropriate to feature the result of the first ITN before the second has been completed. There should be no image of Erdoğan to avoid confusion with the presidential election. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, and great point about the erdogan image. is there an alternative picture we can use for AKP that would make sense? eg its logo? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the election is over.  𝕿𝖑𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖉𝖞𝖗   Talk 23:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now For the parliamentary election article, the "Electoral system" section is orange-tagged and the "Preliminary results" section doesn't have any prose. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until an actual winner appears following the second round. estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The presidential election isn't finished, and the parliamentary election article still has orange-tagged sections. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until after the runoff vote has taken place, whereby a winner will be officially declared. Tofusaurus (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb 4. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * or blurb 3 actually is good to me too. As long as the parliamentary election results are official / clear enough at this point. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until the runoff is complete. Then we can announce the general election results and the runoff winner. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until we know the president-elect, at which point we should have a blurb recognizing them as the winner after a run-off vote while also mentioning the fact that the People's Alliance retained its majority. Kurtis (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle for the parliamentary results, once that article is ready. We will post the presidential result in two weeks when the runoff happens. Curbon7 (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There is still "Preliminary" in the heading at . Have officials at least called the election, formalities aside?—Bagumba (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Shoaib Hashmi

 * Oppose Article is a stub and needs additional expansion in order to be ready for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unfortunately a stub article. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a stub with only 157 words of prose. Please expand this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Farooque

 * Oppose Filmography section is almost entirely unsourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography section has remained largely unreferenced. Please add sources. --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mary Parker

 * Multiple CN tags. The British film career has no prose, no footnotes, just bullet-points. Not ready yet. --PFHLai (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gloria Molina

 * Support Well-sourced & well-written article. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, it looks well-sourced and well-written. Nascar9919 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doyle Brunson

 * Oppose. too many unsourced contentious statements. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Blurb Top of his field and vital. The article needs some polish so I've made a start. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I say this as a huge poker fan: Doyle Brunson in no way needs to be blurbed. He was certainly top of his field, but his field isn't important enough and this is still "old man dies". -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a popular gambling sport, poker is much the same sort of thing as the Kentucky Derby for which we're blurbing a horse. That's had a week, which is more than enough, and so a Brunson blurb would be an improvement. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a frequent INTC contributor, you are well aware that a death blurb is not the same as an event blurb, and we do not make posting decisions based on the state/age of current blurbs. WP:AGF does not mean we will ignore repeated disruptive editing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s Andrew, his entire purpose here is to be disruptive since he opposes the existence of ITN in the first place. The Kip (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be time to consider admin actions if they continue to be purposefully disruptive. M asem (t) 03:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m unfortunately not adept enough in handling those proceedings to do so myself, but I’d be happy to back anyone else who’d like to do so. The Kip (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - Please stop trying to make a WP:POINT. In every way categorically speaking, this is not someone who would receive a blurb under our current criteria. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The current criteria state that: "The death of major figures may merit a blurb ... and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC..." and so that's what we're doing just as we did for other greats like Harry Belafonte.  Brunson is widely recognised as a major figure with a significant legacy in his field and already acknowledged as such on Wikipedia by his vital status.  The NYT cites comparisons with Babe Ruth, Michael Jordan and Arnold Palmer and says that they are apt. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know just as well as anyone here that there's no such thing as Q.E.D. at ITN, as indicated by the criteria stating that they may merit a blurb (not shall or must), and it's not invalid to state that Doyle Brunson may not be a transformative figure in sports. For one thing, his article lacks a "Legacy" section, which someone so remarkable should surely have. For another thing, Texas Hold'em is a niche sport which does not capture worldwide recognition as other major sports would. And finally, although international notability is not a requirement at ITN, in other countries where Texas Hold'em is not universally celebrated, it is doubtful that his death will even register a blip among their populations. This is not a blurbable candidate. I say that as someone who thinks it was base and criminal that ITN snubbed Bill Russell for a blurb. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Poker has long been a popular participation sport and this has exploded since the advent of Internet play so that the global number of players is estimated to be about 100 million. It's especially associated with the US going back to the cowboy era but I'm British and played it before the Internet even existed.  When the WSOP came to London for the first time in 2007, I went to watch and was impressed to see Annette Obrestad win the event.  She was an 18-year-old woman from Norway and so the "niche" is bigger than you suppose – much bigger than snooker, say, and comparable with chess. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a good rule of thumb that we might consider codifying is whether the death itself notable enough to have an article (for example, Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II or Assassination of Shinzo Abe). If it is, that indicates it's probably important enough to blurb. Likewise, no one is going to take Death of Doyle Brunson seriously as an article, which implies that the death isn't significant enough to blurb. It's not a perfect rule, but it's a fairly strong indicator of what deaths might be "blurbable". At the very least, it would be something to guide discussions like this where everyone and their mother is a contender for a death blurb. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There were 17 individual deaths blurbed in 2022 and only 6 of them have separate articles for their death/funeral. So the suggested rule doesn't fit that pattern and a similar idea was rejected when proposed.  But YMMV as it doesn't seem that we've had any individual death blurbs so far this year and it's May already. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was considering reviving that proposal, but with clearer language and options. Part of the reason I pulled it back is because Abductive said it was badly worded. There wasn't necessarily a consensus against changing the criteria. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, sourcing issues, several paragraphs lack any sources. Would support RD only; blurb is redundant given that all we'd have to say is that he died.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb, weak oppose RD Article needs some sourcing fixing and quality updates in order to be ready for ITNRD. Blurb? No. As a not-so-wise editor once said, "Old man dies." Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb, support RD Not notable enough to be blurb, could be good for RD though. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb for obvious reasons. Oppose RD on quality reasons, I identified a number of uncited statements in the article. The Kip (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose until and unless improvements are made to the sourcing. I also oppose blurb, as I'm not convinced that Brunson is really that transformative of a figure in poker, nor do I think there is anything particularly remarkable about his passing. Kurtis (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've replaced the citation needed tags with citations. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 18:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's support for blurb or no blurb by the way. Repeating the NYT line: "On his website, Mr. Brunson was once immodestly described as 'the Babe Ruth, the Michael Jordan, and the Arnold Palmer of poker.' The comparisons were apt." Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 18:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Doyle_Brunson still needs references and 1 CN tag remains.  Spencer T• C 20:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * fixed those. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 20:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cyclone Mocha

 * Support - its happening, it's notable, and its led to historically massive evacuations. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 18:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It reached 175 mph 1-minute average according to the US Navy hurricane center, is that the North Indian Ocean record?Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tied with Fani 2019. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait/oppose Simple evacuations, even in the millions, are not significant as ones that make devastating landfall. --M asem (t) 18:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Luckily for the Myanmarans and Bengalis it weakened to 120 mph by landfall. The heat engine inhaled dry air. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still very bad, can you imagine a storm roughly 1.5 times the speed of the average Texan driver barreling through the town you have lived in all your life? WikiHelper0830 (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As a Houston-area resident, I personally witnesses Hurricane Harvey being outpaced by normal drivers on the highway acting like it was nothing. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Until they were stuck in floodwaters... Tails   Wx  13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait this could be notable but we'll have to wait to see its effects. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Death toll and damage is high enough for me to support Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

*Weak oppose Whilst it is a terrible catastrophe to have hit Bangladesh and Myanmar, fatalities only reached 15 and dissipated rather quickly. Unless the damage is found to be worse, I'm opposing for now. Support due to fatalities rising into the hundreds. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support it directly affects 1.2 million people. Few other events we post do that. Banedon (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the picture showing the path of the cyclone would be more informative. --132.68.41.17 (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in good shape, topic appears to be in the news. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article seems fine, I might add a new blurb to depict the victims and damages, but I'll go with the blurb for now. Tails   Wx  13:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support unless there's a valid argument that it fails WP:N. Article is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 18:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any such argument presented by someone would be based in falsehood considering the death toll is already at 29 and still rising. Support <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The aftermath could potentially be devastating. 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Death toll has risen to 29 (source) Infinity (talk - contributions) 21:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 400 estimated. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Not only for the death toll (already 29), but also for the fact that this directly affected more than one million people. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The alternative blurb should be updated, as the death toll is regrettably increasing (other, possibly more precise source reporting from AFP, in French unfortunately) Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Marked ready. I can't post because I voted.  Hopefully, another admin will notice some day.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is going to pillory you for posting an item with 8 to 1 in favor. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support 44 confirmed fatalities, 400 estimated, thousands of houses, 64+ schools, 27+ religious buildings, 14+ medical facilities and 18+ government buildings destroyed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 09:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sibylle Lewitscharoff

 * Support Article looks completely sourced, and there is mention that she died even if not where expected. Kingsif (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article & well-written. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't think it was updated until I just added what I thought was necessary (place of death for example). There's much more in German if someone has the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(Re-posted) Sweden wins Eurovision

 * Oppose for now. A prose write up of the event and the results is required. The article is entirely about the run-up and preliminary events right now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Insignificant no lasting WP:EFFECT --TheDutchViewer (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Eurovision is WP:ITNR, so its importance is already assumed. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, though I agree with @Amakuru that it's necessary wait in order for the Wikipedia community to get some details right and a prose ready.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 23:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - winner of the worlds largest televised music competition.BabbaQ (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the televote figures have been added. Sceptre (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but do wait a little bit for a proper prose and to get some details, such as televote figures and the full semi-final results. Nascar9919 (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, it is an important event, and should get posted.  TomMasterReal  TALK 03:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support for internationally recognized and well-known music competition. Although I do recommend you add the song (Tattoo) for clarification, as is precedent from past years. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (a place to chalk &#124; a list of stuff i've done) 05:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Table-heavy with no description of the actual event. Says nothing about the two stand-out moments – Croatia's bizarre entry and Mel Giedroyc's milkmaid act. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Eurovision has always been significant, and this year Loreen makes history. Extra significant. Twistedaxe (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminder - Hey everyone, "Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." Thanks -- KTC (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. The article is really long but most of the things I checked are properly sourced. I will tweak the blurb a bit. --Tone 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull where is the prose update? I and several others insisted this was a prerequisite for posting, as it always is for events and sports matches etc. Please wait until this is provided. The assertyion that Loreen won doesn't even seem to be cited at present, it's mentioned in the lead only, other than maybe in one of the many tables.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The posting was nicely in the tradition of the contest which is notorious for its "irregular voting patterns". I'm not sure of the details as they are complex, keep changing and the article doesn't explain them but my understanding is that Americans were allowed to vote and that viewers could vote up to 20 times.  And the key principle is that the British must not be allowed to win.  It's rather like Wikipedia... :) Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised this was posted, considering there's very little actual prose about the nights events. It's all in table form which isn't a substitute. I'd recommend pulling.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Not a lot of prose about the results, just a bunch of tables. Not suitable for the main page. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 14:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull per above. A prose update for results is the minimum required update needed for such an event like this. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Reminder to everyone, that when an item is indicated as being ITN/R, there is NO NEED to provide a significance/notability rationale in your !vote. "It's internationally recognized", "it's an important event" -- yes, we know all of these things. That's why it is WP:ITNR. Restating them is redundant and can also cause confusion regarding whether the article is qualitatively ready for the Main Page, as it would seem has happened here. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that there's no prose update on the final. The thing is that it's organised in a different section, which contains two paragraphs at the end on the final. Whether it should be moved to the section on the final or not is something that should be discussed on the article's talk page. And please check the nominations on the ESC in the past because the exact same thing regarding the quality of the update has been discussed multiple times before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There should still be more about the final vote and the winner just beyond saying Sweden won. I see articles covering reactions to the final performances and the like. It is fair to have everything about the non-voting aspect of the finales in a different section, but the final should still be developed more given how fast I see articles about it - eg we're not waiting for viewership numbers or the like. M asem (t) 15:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled - technically I was WP:INVOLVED, having called for pulling this morning; but I think this is legitimate, as four other editors have also called for pulling since then, representing a consensus, and it seems fairly unambiguous that the quality criterion was not met here. Please contact me if you think I've done anything wrong here, I'm always open for accountability. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You’ve done at least three things wrong. Firstly, you pulled it as involved, which you noted yourself. Secondly, you’ve apparently failed to see that there’s an update of the final elsewhere in the article. Thirdly, you’ve also failed to check the discussions from the previous years in which the exact same thing was discussed. There’s nothing relevant missing from the article; it’s just not under the “Final” sub-section, which isn’t a requirement (we’re evaluating the whole article, not specific sections, and the articles on the ESC have had a standardised format for decades). What kind of information you expect to see there?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So... yeah, this is troutable. You weren't "technically" involved, you were involved, and this isn't the sort of make-or-break situation where you needed to make an immediate IAR decision. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Trout the bad post too then. It ignored almost half, even some "supports", that said more prose was needed.  None of the other supports rebutted the quality concerns. Poster should have !voted instead.—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First, nothing I said there related to the original posting. Two wrongs don't make a right. Second, I'm in favor of giving admins wide leeway to post. It doesn't hurt anyone to pull things down later, particularly when the questions are related to quality improvements rather than quality problems. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @The ed17 First, nothing I said there related to the original posting: Exactly. Criticism is fair, my suggestion was to apply a postmortem on the entire situation and both admin actions. Unless they provide additional explanation, the post looks like a WP:SUPERVOTE or an oversight on what people said was still missing. The pull's intent was to improve WP, whether or not one condones it or even if it didn't achieve it's intended purpose. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Re-post This is an invalid pull for multiple reasons, and also done by an involved editor. I don’t get why the lack of a prose update in one section of a 238-KB article with 350 references and no issues is a problem when it wasn’t a problem to post the articles on the same event from 2008-2022, which are in exactly the same shape (moreover, some of them are good articles).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Repost – Partially per Kiril Simeonvski, and I don't see any specific problems with sources/article content compared to other years. DecafPotato (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Eurovision Song Contest 2023 is atrocious. There's very little prose there, just tables and tables. The only "update" prose I see is in the lead and is unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The prose write-up of the final is under Eurovision Song Contest 2023, not 'Final' A.D.Hope (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I want to ask, is there really need for a detailed prose for Eurovision Song Contest 2023? I ask because I just checked the last 3 eurovision articles are they look identical to this and they all passed with out any opposing mentioning as such. Heck, if we are talking about prose in the lead, 2023's is about the same size as 2019's. Sorry if I am misunderstanding anything though. Captain  Galaxy  23:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely no. The main problem here is that some people want to treat every single article the same way even though there are clear guidelines on how an article on the Eurovision Song Contest should look like. If we put the tables aside, this article still contains more prose than 90% of the articles we post, but for some editors it’s not enough. I know that it may sound too harsh, but this seems like trolling.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The top of that "guideline" says: —Bagumba (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Re-post I've added sources to the final paragraph of the lead, which details Loreen's win. This should make the article acceptable. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)\
 * ITN/R I refuse to support posting Eurovision, but the article is at least front-page-ready if we're still refusing to cut down ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep pulled until prose issues in article are fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-post It's fine. Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-post given recent updates/ I've added the updated lead into the article prose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a pattern in Eurovision articles where extensive/important information about winning songs is in the lead and not included in the article body. Something to watch out for in 2024. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem intuitive that the main prose for the finals results is under, instead of perhaps , which is currently just massive stats tables without accompanying commentary (WP:NOTSTATS). —Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this above, but several of the last round finalist songs - which likely may find articles of their own at some point - have been discussed in the hours after Sweden won, so there's clearly that information that should be expanded on somewhere. I know there' reception of the event, but the songs should be covered more rather than dumped in a list (assuming they already don't have articles) M asem (t) 04:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it seems weird to have the article organised in that way, you’re strongly encouraged to propose changes of its structure. There are guidelines agreed by other editors that you should either respect or contest on a more appropriate place (there’s no universal MoS on Wikipedia). Furthermore, the final isn’t ITN/R, but the whole event is, so the entire article is what should be evaluated. Finally, it’s nowhere written in stone that we “must” have prose updates in every single section. We have good articles on the ESC in similar shape, so I don’t think that the criteria for posting to ITN should be higher than for a GA.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNQUALITY: It's WP:OTHERCONTENT to dismiss concerns about the final now merely because nobody has noticed or objected in the past. WP:CCC too. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this isn't a well-written article that is a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, then you're either trolling or have drastically different quality standards (you should better tell this the editors who promote these articles to a GA status). Even after a prose update was added to the final section, this is still kept out of the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We're more aware of update qualities, and this is no more different than asking for a recap and immediate impact/influence of some even like the World Cup or Super Bowl. Its great the article was ready up to the point of the event, but the event still has to be given a reasonable treatment given the immediate time frame to be a quality update. M asem (t) 12:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If that's the case,, tell me more about "Tattoo"! What's the story behind it? What inspired it? Why did it connect with the voters? (Unfortunately, none of that info about the winner of this massive contest is included in the article currently.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That piece of information should be included in Tattoo, not in the contest article, but it’s not there either because there’s nothing in reliable souces or because that article doesn’t appear in the blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you saying that there's no place for background information on the winner of Eurovision 2023 in the article about Eurovision 2023? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We usually only keep background information about songs to the song article in WP:Eurovision- in this case, Tattoo (Loreen song). I just added some background and composition information about the song on the song's article. Nascar9919 (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I'm saying that the contest article doesn't need information which is more suitable for another article per WP:CFORK (by the same logic, one may argue that the contest article should contain background biographical information about the winner, but why to do so when the reader can click on the link to find out more?). Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How are the Eurovision articles considered comprehensive without any background info on their winning songs? That contravenes the spirit* of Summary style—*spirit because this isn't necessarily a parent/child situation, but the broader tenets apply—as articles need to be individually comprehensive. Moreover, WP:EUROVISION's guidance to include the winner only in the lead violates MOS:LEAD. I'd love if you all would participate in the two new discussions at WT:EUROVISION that include these problems. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Re-posted - there is prose summary of the final now, albeit minimal, so my concerns are addressed, and there seems to be consensus now that re-posting is in order. Thanks to those who contributed to the update. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tayeb Belaiz

 * Support. Well produced artcle, looks ready to post. Twistedaxe (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article looks fine with good sourcing. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has enough information.Alex-h (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's just a dry list of titles held (and, at best, barely past a stub).—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still lacking info on what the subject did at the various posts mentioned in this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Don Denkinger

 * Oppose Needs additional sourcing. Twistedaxe (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still has several cn tags. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael J. Juneau

 * Oppose Article is currently classified as a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Not a very long article, but more information seems to have been added. Well-sourced article too. Seems okay to post now. Twistedaxe (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Remove Israeli protests

 * Support It's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - not as consistently in the news as weeks past, especially with the gaza violence ongoing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and other supporters. Jusdafax (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 22:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed Stephen 04:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;The protests themselves have diminished in scale. While this is partly the result of fighting between Israel and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the numbers aren't what they used to be and most of the world has moved on from this story. Kurtis (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Post removal support per nom and all above. Cheers, and atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hodding Carter III

 * Support I don't see any problems, although someone could argue it might be short. But as he was one of the main faces of the Iran Hostage Crisis, no matter where this nom goes, he will have his place. Although, Jimmy Carter has outlived another one of his administration. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've expanded the article a bit with an early life/education section.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One cn tag but it's not a showstopper. Article is sat for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Found a citation for the tag in question. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Acceptable sourcing and layout. Jusdafax (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks alright. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good.BabbaQ (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Teina Maraeura

 * Weak Support Not wowed by the article length, but I think it meets our customary standards for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * French Polynesia has a limited online media landscape, so it is more difficult to write about without access to offline print newspapers. Curbon7 (talk) 23:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article is barely good enough for ITNRD, though some expansion would be nice. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Meets minimum criteria. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Twistedaxe (talk) 05:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jacklyn Zeman

 * Oppose per nom. Filmography section is entirely unsourced. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I've referenced the entire Filmography section. Article is in good shape. Hope this helps! Tails   Wx  01:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 United States migrant surge

 * Oppose article is only a sentence long.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 21:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article is tiny, the newsworthiness of the topic is at best highly subjective, and I don't understand the nominator's comment - don't all stories from the USA involve the Americas? GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stories from the United States involve the United States, not the Americas. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - I have never in my life seen such a sad and tiny article for an important topic. In my opinion, this should have been a draft so work could have been done on it. Rushtheeditor (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have draftified this article, and thus it is ineligible for nomination. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Conditional strong support - yes, the article is currently ass, but contrary to what @GenevieveDEon might claim, this is a pretty critical news story. The expiry of the COVID-era Title 42 provisions will, and already is causing a massive surge of migrants that will bode an enormous amount of strain on the US southern border. The Department of Homeland Security predicted that this will lead to 10k migrant crossings per day; it's already exceeded that with 11,000 being apprehended on Tuesday and Wednesdays each (NPR). To @GenevieveDEon, is 70,000 migrants crossing the border in a week not newsworthy? How about 300K in a month? Even Biden himself has admitted that the southern border will be "chaotic for quite a while" (Al Jazeera). Both sides of the aisle are skeptical of America's ability to handle this (CNN), and the border is already being seriously overwhelmed (NBC). Even with his attempts to combat this, its likely to get bogged down in a series of legal challenges (BBC). This is a story of substantial importance, that is quite literally In the news, receiving coverage from sources on the left and the right.
 * I would like to emphasize that final part too as I suspect there will be !voters who will oppose, dismissing this as "republiKKKan fearmongering." All of the sources I cited were not right-wing, being a mixture of centrist and liberal outlets; certainly not the type that would back Trump and his ilk. Liberals and progressives are both saying that this will be bad for the border and Biden, with again, even he himself stating that it will lead to chaos on the border. The fact that for an issue like illegal immigration on the southern border, you're seeing people on the American left be like "oh shit, this could be bad," is demonstrative of this event's significance. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 00:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bad article. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  01:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The restrictions only just expired yesterday, lets wait and see if there is a large increase to justify it. At the moment, personally I don't see that emerging so I am leaning oppose but willing to wait and see what happens.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 08:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing This border has been in the news for years and I was reading press reports about the end of title 42 months ago. And there's plenty of similar migration/refugee issues elsewhere such as the boat crossings of the English Channel which have likewise been in the news for years.  See 2014 American immigration crisis which seems to peter out but my impression is that it's been an ongoing issue throughout. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article quality seems to have improved considerably since it was initially assessed. It could still use for some expansion and clean up (it still reads like a scattershot list of single sentence anecdotes rather than a coherent narrative, for example) but it's not terrible and is probably barely acceptable for the main page currently.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The size of the "surge" (ie the difference from prior) would seem critical in assessing significance. I'm not seeing this clearly and reliably indicated in the article.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good grief, really? Given that migration into many other countries is on a scale many times what this article suggests (i.e. one million into the UK in 2022 ), this (41 people arrived here, another 50 arrived on a bus) is basically trivia. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too soon to tell if this will be a significant event, hence the article's nomination at AfD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Long Boi

 * Support - from WP:ITNRD, Individuals who disappear are eligible for a recent deaths entry for the day they are declared dead in absentia, subject to the standard criteria above if there is no concurrent blurb about the disappearance. The article looks good; there's a tag there, but I'm sure it can be remedied. -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 12:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No argument about staleness or significance, but RDs need to be a fairly good quality. The vast majority of the article is cited to primary sources or a tabloid called "The Tab" (including numerous citations misattributed to the "University of York"). While this source hasn't officially been deemed unreliable by RSN, it is not of sufficient quality to make up the bulk of a quality article. Also, the disappearance section is too large due to WP:RECENTISM and needs a copyedit.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We're really going to post a dead duck on ITN, huh? --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ... it's a duck, and just because it went missing doesn't mean it's RD-worthy. oh, and back to the main point, it's a duck. are we really going to post about a duck? Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Animals are acceptable for RD. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that too, but, man... feels like a bridge too far, honestly. I'd IAR oppose, RD is pretty packed as it is nowadays. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've said it before and I'll say it again: we've painted ourselves into a corner with the RD policy. There should always be some standard, however minimal, for significance. The RD policy sets that standard at "has an article" which is messed up because even a subject that doesn't meet GNG can have an article. Our "solution" to this is the just AfD it, except AfD does not firmly enforce GNG.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No we have not GCH. Yo uare entitled to your opinion on RD, but it is working fine. Curbon7 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * RD was established solely for the purpose of preventing blurb-ITN from becoming a mega-obituary. Henceforth why the RD criteria was later expanded to include all recent deaths of notable persons in 2016. Why exactly do would we need to import some undefined significance criterion that would just do nothing but bog down the RD process and cause the BS bickering that occurs on blurb/ongoing noms to spillover back into the RD process once more? Besides, the title reads recent deaths, not "recent deaths of great importance." I've noticed that there's this growing group of editors on ITN who complain excessively about how "vauge" the RD standard is, which to me is ridiculous giving that if anything, the WP:ITNRD process is demonstrative of all the failures of blurb and ongoing nom process. I mean, just compare the discussions. People are complaining about the comparatively more streamlined and cool RD process because "it's too broad," and instead calling for it to be replaced with the embarrassing, dramawhoring, heated debates of blurb noms.
 * Additionally, what is wrong with AFDing it? You're complaining about how the "if it has an article" standard is messed up because even a subject that doesn't meet GNG can have an article. Well, if it doesn't pass WP:GNG or any notability criteria, it probably doesn't deserve an article? How exactly is there any issue with AFDing non-notable articles? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 15:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * People are complaining about the comparatively more streamlined and cool RD process because "it's too broad," and instead calling for it to be replaced with the embarrassing, dramawhoring, heated debates of blurb noms. If this is directed at me, I think you've cast quite a major aspersion, as I've said no such thing. All I'm saying is that there are instances in which something that is on paper eligible for RD may not necessarily merit posting on the Main Page from a qualitative and encyclopedic standpoint. I've got no intention of overhauling policy, but we need to acknowledge these exceptions exist. There hasn't even been any confirmation that the duck is dead, and no legal authority exists that can do so. This story seems memetic. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My above reply was largely directed towards @GreatCaesarsGhost, and a few other people I've seen protesting the current RD criterion (who, AFAIK, you were not one of).
 * All I'm saying is that there are instances in which something that is on paper eligible for RD may not necessarily merit posting on the Main Page from a qualitative and encyclopedic standpoint - I don't understand this point. It kind of sounds like you're making the same point of CaesarsGhost of how articles of questionable notability get featured. My response to this every time is and shall be -  Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 15:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And my response will be "If you say this, you don't know how AfD works." Someone creates a BLP for an RD. I oppose saying they aren't significant. You say oppose on significance not allowed, go to AfD. I go to AfD, and they say keep *because article is new* and may improve with time. This is reality. AfD was not set up to square this circle.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your AFD experience seems to differ heavily from me. Either its coincidental or the articles your nominating for AFD aren't as lacking in notability as you think. Either way, regardless, any article which fails WP:GNG or any notability criteria should be AFDed, so the response to a failed AFD nom should not be using ITN as some sort of weird backdoor. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 16:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting WP:NOTBURO which says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles." You're literally saying we should ignore our principals and follow the bureaucracy "regardless" of if that bureaucracy is even functional. And WP:ITNRD isn't even a policy; it's an information page.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How did the response to a failed AFD nom should not be using ITN as some sort of weird backdoor turn into fellating the bureaucracy? I repeatedly stated that this seems to contrast with my experiences on AFD. Comments like you listed are frequently disregarded by closers. Maybe you aren't waiting long enough. Besides, AFDing an article is already a showstopper for ITN noms anyway (since, the typical duration of an AFD is as long as the archiving/duration period for an ITN nom to be posted [a week], meaning that unless the AFD is closed early, it wont get posted). Also, yes, WP:ITNRD is a policy page, there is policy listed there. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 00:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, ITNRD is very much not a policy page, and if you think it is, I think you should step back from the level of adversarial editing you are doing here until you have taken some time to educate yourself.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of AfD. Article content does not determine notability, and comments based on article content are routinely dismissed by AfD closers. Article age is specifically listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that we're currently blurbing a horse. "Four legs good, two legs bad"? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The death of a horse is not currently the subject of any blurb. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article in that case makes a big deal about the death of seven horses for some reason. It was quite mysterious when first posted but now the details are starting to emerge... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And? That's not why we posted the Derby. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Leave it to Andrew to argue in bad faith. The Kip (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Derby was rubber-stamped as WP:ITN/R and is being blurbed uncritically as a routine sporting event. I looked at the article when it was posted and was puzzled by the article's sketchy details of some horse deaths which seemed to be a non sequitur.  But more details have been emerging since and it appears that they are the real story.  See Stench of death..., for example. "There’s something going on..." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. Despite this duck being somewhat unique, is it really newsworthy and worth posting on RD? 🛧 Layah50♪ 🛪 ( 話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！  ) 14:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nominations for RD are not assessed for significance. Only quality. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, then support , IAR oppose after that Article is eligible for ITNRD notability, though the sourcing needs work and the quality is subpar. Further !votes have convinced me that this isn't ready for ITN/R, at all. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once NPSN is cleared up As stated earlier, RDs are not based on significant and this article would be of good quality once that tag is cleared. Captain  Galaxy  15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Strong aquatic news. Much needed correction of the anthropocentric bias in the RDs. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - since people aren't noticing the statement at the bottom of the nombox, Imma restate it - Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. In other words, this is RD-worthy, and if you have an issue with it, than take it to WT:ITN and attempt to establish a consensus for amending our current RD standards. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed it. I'm IAR opposing. I don't think we are improving Wikipedia by including this item, certainly not in its current state. This is one of those rare exceptions to guidelines that Wikipedia permits for. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that too, but, man... feels like a bridge too far, honestly. I'd IAR oppose, RD is pretty packed as it is nowadays - care to explain exactly how it's a bridge too far, aside from "well RD has too many articles?" Not to be a dick, just genuinely asking. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 15:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because:
 * There's no confirmation that the duck in question is actually dead, and no legal authority exists to do so,
 * The article is of considerably poor quality, with a very unencyclopedic tone, almost equivalent to a college newspaper in its writing,
 * There are serious questions raised as far as notability which merit further exploration, and that may very well lead to an AFD, but in the meantime, it's not a good idea to rush into posting something just because the prose is sourced and readable.
 * I think it'd be a bad look for Wikipedia to post this to the Main Page. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make another comment  about this, but is there any legal precedent regarding death in absentia for matters relating to animals?
 * As I will always state, just because an article is in piss-poor shape does not mean that it cannot be included on ITN on paper; it can be improved to main page status. That is once of the cornerstones of ITN, working together to improve articles about newsworthy topics to feature on the main page.
 * If you think the article isn't encyclopedic and or noteworthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, than you know where to go. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BEFORE, rushing off to AFD isn't just something one does lightly, indeed partly because nominating any article for AFD immediately makes it ineligible for posting on RD or ITN from that point on. To avoid being disruptive, I plan on taking my time on that decision -- but at the same time, guidelines are just guidelines for a reason, and I think there's a good discussion to be had about whether the ITNRD guidelines really should unilaterally apply to this item as they have all other items. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a few things to note. First, guidelines are guidelines because they've undergone sitewide scrutiny and are the current state of consensus. Second, there are no guidelines that apply to ITN separately from the rest of the site's policies and guidelines. The guidelines that apply to ITN are limited to the ones listed here. Third, if something fails to meet our notability guidelines, then it should be nominated for deletion and it should not be posted to RD or ITN. And fourth, WP:IAR does not give any individual editor the power to overrule the consensus of other editors. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to overrule consensus. I am proposing an IAR oppose to this nomination and giving my reasons for why I'm doing so. Other editors are free to agree or disagree, and as it turns out, quite a few editors do agree with me. We have done this before for a recent Blue Origin launch. The launch was technically ITN/R, but it received a sizable enough IAR opposition that the decision was made not to post the item even though the guidelines specifically state that ITN/R items are not subject to notability tests. My !vote is just as valid as yours or anyone else's. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BEFORE, rushing off to AFD isn't just something one does lightly, indeed partly because nominating any article for AFD immediately makes it ineligible for posting on RD or ITN from that point on. To avoid being disruptive, I plan on taking my time on that decision -- but at the same time, guidelines are just guidelines for a reason, and I think there's a good discussion to be had about whether the ITNRD guidelines really should unilaterally apply to this item as they have all other items. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a few things to note. First, guidelines are guidelines because they've undergone sitewide scrutiny and are the current state of consensus. Second, there are no guidelines that apply to ITN separately from the rest of the site's policies and guidelines. The guidelines that apply to ITN are limited to the ones listed here. Third, if something fails to meet our notability guidelines, then it should be nominated for deletion and it should not be posted to RD or ITN. And fourth, WP:IAR does not give any individual editor the power to overrule the consensus of other editors. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to overrule consensus. I am proposing an IAR oppose to this nomination and giving my reasons for why I'm doing so. Other editors are free to agree or disagree, and as it turns out, quite a few editors do agree with me. We have done this before for a recent Blue Origin launch. The launch was technically ITN/R, but it received a sizable enough IAR opposition that the decision was made not to post the item even though the guidelines specifically state that ITN/R items are not subject to notability tests. My !vote is just as valid as yours or anyone else's. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Respectfully, does a university have the legal authority to declare a duck dead in absentia. I mean, I know that sounds silly, but we're adding an item to RD because the subject was not seen in a week? Sorry, that's not good enough for me. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait: It has not yet been officially confirmed that this duck is dead yet. I think we should hold off until it is confirmed before declaring duckus mortus on ITN.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 15:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - people keep bring up how no legal authority has declared Long Boi over here dead, but from my research, there appears to be little precedent regarding death in absentia in regards to animals. Considering we've established that selfies taken by animals are in the public domain since copyright law only applies to animals, I would like to see if this similarly also applies to declared deaths as well. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 16:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, this is because the law rarely has reason to care about non-human deaths. My point really is death in absentia is already jumping to a conclusion, but we must utilize it because eventually an individual must be declared dead for legal reasons. Why I dispute this entry as RD eligible is not only is the target's ability to be declared as such disputable, but we're going simply off of a body saying "well, we guess the duck is dead". DarkSide830 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Long enough and sourcing is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A bird flew away, and hasn't come back in a little while. I am failing to see how this qualifies as a death?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article needs improving, but the coverage suggests it to be a notable death (or not) despite whatever of us think about the relevance of this particular duck. Bedivere (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly ITN is in desperate need of light relief to dissipate some of the doom and gloom. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Bedivere (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Never before have I seen someone suggest that the means to dissipate the doom and gloom on ITN with a light relief would be via posting a Recent Death. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just glad that I could bring something new to the table Iskandar323 (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like a nice Peking duck brought to the table, but inflation makes it so hard to eat out nowadays... ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, might be just me, but there appears to be absolutely zero evidence that the duck is dead. I mean, it almost certainly is (it's a famous duck and someone would have seen it if it had just popped down to the lake next door), but ... if it is found, will we need a Recent Resurrections section? Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Borderline Support and or Oppose The duck appears to be notable, so that's fine. But I do wonder if this is too soon, as since its close to or mating season, that it may be a temporary disappearance. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Okay, I did a little digging on the lifespan of Indian Runner Ducks (by digging I mean a bunch of google searches), and, well, for one he's 70cm/27in, and an adult Indian Runner Duck is about 26-32in, meaning when our Long Boi surfaced, he was probably an adult. An Indian Runner Duck lives 8-12 years, and he surfaced about 5 years ago, so at least he's lived 5 years. I'm skeptical, frankly, and I couldn't find a source that tells me when Indian Runner Ducks reach adulthood, so on account that our Boi here hasn't lived the lifespan of an average runner duck, I must oppose. And the fact I'm opposing makes me sad for the sole reason that my humor makes me think having a name like "Long Boi" on the main page is funny. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is one of the best comments I've seen on ITN/C in a long time. And I agree- seeing "Long Boi" on the main page would be awesome, but alas, it probably won't happen right now. -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If this isn't original research, I don't know what is. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that my thoughts are what's likely, not definite, sorry. Don't want to say this is the definite conclusion, of course, but it's enough I can base a support or oppose around it. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb and everything that is supportable worse things I’ve seen and we will see over here. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support making it Today's Featured Article. If enough of us support it then they can't stop us. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly! TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I’d support this if the duck was definitely dead & the article quality was good enough, but there seems to be a question about whether or not the duck is definitely dead. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IAR Oppose - This is why I oppose the automatic inclusion of non-human subjects on RD. In no reasonable world is the unproven death of a wild duck in the news. And I note that several of the above !votes are intentionally disruptive - proposing blurbs and other promotions for the article just because it would allegedly be funny. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD equates humans and animals alike, fine. But would we post the former as a death if missing for only a week, I am sure not. The same is the case here. Gotitbro (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No evidence the duck is dead. He’s not nailed to the perch, nor pushing up the daisies, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment once more - for the people complaining that their is no definitive evidence that he died, you're statements come into direct conflict in the article, which recognizes U of York's claim that he died, as do many other WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. In other words, bring up the convo on the article's talk page or your arguments effectively amount to WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 23:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Knightoftheswords, please stop WP:BITING the newcomers. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe stop calling for all nominations you disagree with to be WP:SPEEDY and WP:SNOW closed, otherwise, I will follow on WaltCip's call to action when you started doing that. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 00:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gave me a bit of a chuckle with that one, but no, I don't call for speedy or snow closes w/ every nom I disagree with. There's plenty of proof out there, because I did not start editing ITN in March of this year. Side note, why are you getting this defensive over a single RD nomination? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't bite newcomers. Additionally, the reason why I'm getting this defensive over a single RD nomination is because in many ways this entire thread highlights everything wrong with ITN in 2023. People using nomination discussions to make largely unconstructive oppose votes that are entirely detached from widely accepted policy and instead using it to WP:OR push as well as try to erect anti-policies in discussions instead of actually working to gather a consensus on WT:ITN. All this to just pave way for frequent uncivil bickering that is completely untethered from any of ITN or Wikipedia's policies and does nothing but make ITN an embarrassment to the rest of the project. On an RD nom nonetheless, which was supposed to be a sanctuary from the chaos that occurs on blurb/ongoing noms. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 00:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The university BELIEVES the duck dead, and said sources are reporting on the matter as such. Again, the University of York does not have the authority to declare anything (duck or otherwise) dead in absentia. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as stupid. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to be a solid rationale for opposition... DecafPotato (talk) 02:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No different from any !vote of "it's significant" or "it's not significant". ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - There is no solid confirmation that he is dead, so he may as well be alive in a different place.
 * TomcatEnthusiast1986 (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A person can be declared dead in abenstia. Animals... not so much. Most ducks live between 5 to 10 years. Did he die a natural death? Or did he just go from the university to live somewhere else? No one really knows. I have no problem supporting death in abenstia cases for RD where the person has been declared legally dead through the court system. However, this is a wild duck. The university has no actual legal authority to declare the duck dead in absentia. Canuck 89 (Gab with me) or visit my user page  03:47, May 12, 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. While it saddens me to hear that Long Boi is no longer at York, we need to wait for a more reliable confirmation of death. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that if this duck is confirmed to have died, that it would warrant an RD, in light of the relevant community consensus. My issue is mainly with the quality of sourcing in support of the claim. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a duck. A duck.  Sandstein   08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 11:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a bit disrespectful to the duck. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Reliable sources are reporting the duck is presumed dead. --Mika1h (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – it's a duck! Any excuse to post a duck. I've read the rules and based of that his death (/ non-death) shouldn't be posted, but given the plethora of duck-haters above I was mightily close to issuing a support. Alternatively, ignore the rules and post it anyway, because it will certainly draw interested clicks.  J947  † edits 11:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Not yet confirmed, and as this is a wild animal, a death in absentia is likely not sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , so no issue with posting if it is confirmed dead. Curbon7 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - When WP:ITNRD was amended to include animals and organisms, it was done with the express interest of allowing race horses and popular zoo animals to be included, since many of them merit their own Wikipedia articles. But we have an issue here in that those types of animals are usually overseen by a zoologist or a breeder, who can provide bona fide independent confirmation that the animal has died. It was never designed for these odd and unique instances in which a wild, untracked animal gains popularity. By nature of their being wild and out of captivity, it becomes difficult to track their status, whether they die of natural causes, migrate, get eaten, etc..
 * Understanding that hard cases make bad law, I'm wondering if WP:ITNRD may benefit from additional fleshing out to deal with odd edge cases like these, or if this really is an instance in which we have to apply WP:IAR due to the oddness of it. That all being said, I'm sticking to my oppose !vote, because all things being equal, the litany of factors I've outlined previously make this not a suitable candidate for the Main Page. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To me, this feels like a good reason to flesh out WP:ITNRD. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per ITN:RD guidelines. It's notable enough for an article, so it's notable enough to be featured here. I understand where the oppose votes are coming from, but I agree with KnightoftheSwords- what few specific guidelines for ITN there are should be followed, and I do not see any pressing reason to ignore them in this case. I also very much like J947's point above- putting Long Boi in RD will absolutely draw interested clicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunsetShotguns (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Presumed dead does not mean dead. The bird is missing. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral. In general, I do think that deaths of notable non-human animals deserve to be included in RD. However, I am a little hesitant in this case because the death is not confirmed beyond all reasonable doubt. Apparently it's not uncommon for wild birds to disappear and be found again after a while. For example, Petra (swan) disappeared in 2009 and was found alive in 2013. The Central Park mandarin duck disappeared in March 2019 and still hasn't been found AFAICT, but there's a statement from December 2019 that he most likely had flown somewhere else. I know we're supposed to follow reliable sources, but I'm not sure the university's statement is sufficient here. If, for example, an expert ornithologist were to opine that death is 90% likely and this species of bird is known to stay in one place their entire adult life, then I would be more inclined to support. I would support posting if the RD were written "Long Boi (presumed)" and we agreed in advance that if he is later found alive, we would post some sort of "recent resurrection" notice. Without those conditions, I'd probably lean more toward opposing. 68.230.131.186 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It seems ridiculous to me to consider posting this item when there is uncertainty whether the subject has died. Imagine the mocking that Wikipedia would (rightly) receive if we did post this and the duck decided to return.  Schwede 66  19:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The world does not record and track the entries that flow through the RD ticker; it barely notices them. And if the duck reappears, this would generate more news in which the focus would be on the happiness of the students and people of York.  The idea that Wikipedia would be at significant risk is indeed quite imaginary. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One wonders if individual Wikipedia entries on any page anywhere make a difference. Analytics on Wikimedia Statistics show an upward trend; compare April 2016, which had just under 20B views, to April 2023 which has close to 24B. According to Semrush, 72.23% of hits originate from Google searches. In the grand scheme of things, does anything we do here at ITN have any effect? See also Discourses of Epictetus. Also, "The world is a vampire..." ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Declaring a missing animal as "dead" without evidence flies in the face of WP:V. If concrete evidence surfaces that Long Boi is deceased, I'd support—Depths of Wikipedia is popular for a reason. — SamX &#91;talk · contribs&#93; 05:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Missing duck is not ITN material. Show me the death certificate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A missing duck is not the same as a confirmed recent death. --M asem (t) 14:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unconfirmed. Suggest closing as consensus is unlikely to develop. Jusdafax (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Whilst the article looks adequate, there's still no official confirmation of death yet. I offer my sincere condolences to Long Boi's family and the university. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ed Flanagan

 * Article is well cited and long enough. Support. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Sourcing is good, just long enough, and has been updated with the death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 06:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and above supports. Jusdafax (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Ian Hacking

 * Support. The sourcing is borderline, but probably sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've added four cn tags. The Selected works section is partially sourced in the text, while the Canadian Encyclopedia does not reference the whole first paragraph in the Philosophical work section. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Vacant0 I have fixed the issues you have mentioned. Do you mind taking another look? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's still some unsourced books so you should comment them out for now. Support now. Vacant0 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, referenced all the books! Tails   Wx  23:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Djerba shooting

 * Oppose Article is barely not a stub. Article quality must be improved by a lot; once that is done, neutral. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to expand the article significantly, gathering as much relevant information as possible from sources in both English and French. Mooonswimmer 22:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Barring further developments, it is probably not notable, and the article should probably be merged or deleted. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if I wind up agreeing with you that a blurb is not warranted (which I am still considering), there is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to not have an article about this massacre. It is incredibly rare for us to deem the killing of multiple people in a single event as unworthy of inclusion. Kurtis (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I can think of a reason or two. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A mass shooting at one of the oldest synagogues in the world is not routine. Mass shootings in Tunisia are not routine, and I wouldn't consider a mass shooting with a relatively high number of casualties routine practically anywhere in the world.
 * The shooting has been very widely covered in-depth by diverse sources, including most large American, European, Israeli, and North African publications (BBC, NYT, Haaretz, JPost, The National, Le Monde, Le Point, Le Figaro, France 24, DW, Der Spiegel, Times of Israel, The Telegraph...). Certainly meets GNG.
 * The attack is likely to harm Tunisia's tourism sector (NYT: "Tuesday’s shooting could harm the country’s crucial tourism industry, one of the few strong spots in an otherwise flailing economy.") and will likely have an effect on the annual pilgrimage (Times of Israel: Tunisia terror attack threatens to deal ‘mortal blow’ to rare Jewish pilgrimage) and may potentially lead to a population shift in the island's small Jewish population, which is one of the largest in the MENA region. "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
 * How exactly does it fail WP:EVENTCRIT? Mooonswimmer 22:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvement of the article. Attacks against Jewish places of worship are notable, even with 4-6 deaths. 142.186.19.181 (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the same true for Christian/Muslim places of worship? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length. There's not much there.  Needs some expansion to have enough information to be worth directing readers to.  Would support if someone fixed that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to expand the article significantly, gathering as much relevant information as possible from sources in both English and French. Mooonswimmer 22:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Someday, Knightoftheswords281 will nominate an article that is actually of sufficient quality to be posted. Today will probably not be that day. (Also, I do not think this would be sufficiently notable to be posted even if the article weren't a stub.) -- Kicking222 (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have done my best to expand the article significantly, gathering as much relevant information as possible from sources in both English and French. As for notability, what makes you think the incident isn't sufficiently notable? Mooonswimmer 22:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the improvements to this article have been massive, and I certainly appreciate that, but I still don't think a shooting in which five people besides the perpetrator died is worthy of a blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging @Jayron32 @Kicking222 @Fakescientist8000 per @Mooonswimmer. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 11:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I kind of feel like mass shootings are at the point now where it needs to be super significant to be posted. As people have mentioned before, there are hundreds of public shootings in the US alone. Even though Tunisia isn't well known for such events, six deaths isn't really at the level where it's distinct from every other such shooting. This topic (mass shootings) should potentially be discussed in general for ITN significance.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Arrest of Imran Khan

 * Support. Potentially one of the biggest events of the year. Just long enough and well sourced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article appears to be well-sourced and the event is certainly notable. User:Célestin Denis| (User talk:Célestin Denis| talk ]]) 21:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it would be interesting for nominators to do an exercise to see how we have dealt with similar situations in previous nominations. For the thousandth time: the arrest is never ITN-worthy because it does not determine the guilt of a subject of the commission of the crime attributed to him/her. Whoever he is, and wherever he is. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be an actual policy or guideline but just something that a few people came up with in contradiction with our well-established standards on what makes an event notable. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess customs and practices are important for a reason. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For the thousandth time: @Alsoriano97, stop WP:BITING the newcommers. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Knightoftheswords281 Sorry to say this, but Hamza Ali Shah isn't exactly a newcomer in regards to either WP or ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you have better things to do. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To me, what makes this blurbable are the large & deadly protests caused by the arrest. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, people oftentimes seem to forget this, but IAR is a thing. We are allowed to bend the rules when it is prudent for us to do so. Kurtis (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is merely an arrest, not ITN worthy. Article quality is fine, but until he is convicted we should not post this, unless we suddenly decide to become a news ticker. Which we won't. I hope. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the large scale protests in response to the arrest is what makes this one notable.  Hamza Ali Shah   Talk 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then bold the protests article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support both because I supported Trump's arrest being posted, and because the fallout/resulting protests easily meet the notability bar. The Kip (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support - regardless of the "guideline" that supposedly states that we don't post arrests (which as @Thebiguglyalien correctly pointed out is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that is in direct conflict with WP:NEVENTS), this is a absolutely historic moment. The resulting protests and political ramifications alone make this blurb worthy even if he is not convicted. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 23:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support — Solely because of the protests. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support The large & deadly protests caused by the arrest make this ITN-worthy. However, the quality of the article about the protests isn’t good enough (the article about the arrest is good enough to post). I prefer the original blurb b/c the arrest caused the protests. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Added and Support Altblurb. The protests should be the driving factor if this nom passes, so I added an altblurb that focuses more on them. Also, I may or may not have done an opposie and caused an edit conflict, so if I ate someone's comment I'm sorry about that. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per ElijahPepe. Banedon (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * support - and the idea that something is "merely an arrest" and so "not ITN worthy" is based on nothing but ones own imagination. Widely covered, significant impact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 05:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Not just an arrest, but the end of a long story arc and a trigger for unrest in Pakistan. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support notability it's clearly not just merely an arrest, there's so much more to this. However strong oppose on current quality. There's such a mess lacking a parent article on the subject. There's 2023 Imran Khan arrest attempts, 2023 Pakistani protests, 2022 Pakistani political crises, 2022–2023 Pakistan political unrest, 2022 Azadi March II and 2022 Azadi March I. None of them are great articles either. Abcmaxx (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a bit of a mess. Sourcing is all over the place. I've done a bit of cleanup. Needs more. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support for alt blurb per all above. --Saqib (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing There have been a series of incidents since Khan was deposed in April of last year. The arrest attempts and related protests go back to March.  There's more to come, I suppose.  This sort of running battle between the government and opposition seems commmon and my impression is that it's politics as usual. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning Support for alt-blurb The hook should be the protests to not tread into BLPVIO (as also the protests are where the notability lies here). Also agree with Abc that the potpourri of articles needs to be cut down and streamlined. Not ouright supporting this as the onoing nom shows that the article lacks quality. Gotitbro (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support&mdash;A very consequential arrest in multiple respects. I also personally prefer the original blurb over the alternate proposed by DarkSide830; I believe the arrest itself is a notable event, being that it sparked the protests that followed, and ought to be highlighted. Kurtis (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Protests, Internet blackout. Kirill C1 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Alt blurb. The protests are important, arrest may not be. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose on quality; would rather see an article with a cohesive narrative; currently it's written as a rather disjointed timeline. Would support if someone took it on themselves to do something to make that better.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - support alt if article was tidied up.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Having three separate articles on this (the linked one, Imran Khan's own article, and the protest article) seems overkill. The key part of the arrest is only a paragraph long, so that makes a lot of fluff in this article. Obviously, Khan and the protests are linked, but I don't see the need for the arrest article at this time (using the protest article to explain how the arrest kicked those off). Presumably, Khan will see a trial (fair or not) and that would be reason to have a whole article dedicated to that event. --M asem (t) 12:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the story has moved on - BBC "Pakistan's Supreme Court has ruled that former prime minister Imran Khan's dramatic arrest on corruption charges this week was illegal. The court ordered Mr Khan's immediate release." Turini2 (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We posted Trump's indictment in a country of similar population, so I feel this is a no-brainer unless one is biased. Perhaps more notable, given how well known Khan was known internationally since the 1970s, long before Trump was known outside his own country. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is clear consensus on both points that 1) the significance is there and 2) the quality is not.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb and propose adding ‘and other leaders of his party’ to the end of ‘Nationwide protests erupt in Pakistan following the arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan’ as SM Qureshi, Shireen Mazari, Fawad Ch, Asad Umer have all been arrested (abducted really as there were no arrest warrants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.248.15.100 (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has undergone significant improvements, and it is now time to promptly post it without any further delays. --Saqib (talk) 09:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support alt blurb The protests are what make the event especially ITN-worthy. Chaotic Enby (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Pakistani protests

 * Oppose The ITN/ongoing criteria states "In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." The three most recent updates are March 19, April 25, and May 9.  Information trickling into the article at a rate of one update per month is not "regularly updated".  Several times a week would be the level I would expect, not only once per month.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, might have to wait for sometime to see whether the event is worthy enough. Thanks for the enlightenment.  Pg 6475  <font color =  "darkblue">TM  14:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron32, but the article is also sub-standard, not really making it clear what the protests are about and in parts who is actually protesting. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above it is too early to consider that the second wave of protests is sufficiently noticeable. Protests, per se, are not always ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and wait the situation has the potential of becoming a civil war, but we're not there yet. Let's see if the situation develops any further. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is not being updated regularly, and, just because some protest is happening, doesn't mean it's ITN-worthy. We've already got like 3 protests in the past month. Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article last time I checked isn't great, and updates are not consistent. I do think that this unrest is decently notable, as protests cause by the arrest of a former state leader and leading to riots, but article is plain bad with no consistent updates either way. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding this to ongoing due to the lack of updates. However, the arrest of Imran Khan may be blurbable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron. Literally only three listed days in the last three months. The Kip (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Wilferd Madelung

 * Support: Absolutely huge figure in Middle Eastern Studies. Sad news indeed. What a loss. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only quality is assessed for RD nominations. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Yes He is a renowned scholar in Middle Eastern Studies.-- Seyyed(t-c) 17:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only quality is assessed for RD nominations. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article needs work. I'm not sure how a 30-year career being summed up in about 5 lines of text can be considered sufficient.  Needs considerable expansion to be ready for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron and overall article quality. Needs expansion in order to qualify for the light of the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not happy with the article's current shape. The prose is just 339 words (lede and two other sections expect the list of works). I would support if at the least few more sentences are added about his career and perhaps a bit more about how he was considered in the field of Islamic studies. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: Word count is not the end-all-be-all. It is how those words are used (i.e. how holistic the article is). 300 words is sometimes sufficient to make a holistic article, sometimes 800 words is not enough to make a holistic article. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that 800 is rarely sufficient. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump

 * Support: It's a significant legal update that's a potential game-changer for US politics, with prospectively global political ramifications. It's naturally exhibited a decent news spike and diverse global coverage. Article quality is perfectly fine. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose obsession over anything related to Trump (and to a lesser extent US politics in general). If he was convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to jail, sure. A civil judgment against him, not in my opinion. -- KTC (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ignoring the fact that this is Trump we talking about, celebrity gossip isn't really ITN's thing. Civil judgements of any kind aren't really noteworthy, because the ramifications aren't felt by anyone not listed as a defendant or plaintiff in the judgement. ✨ <span style="background:linear-gradient(maroon,red,orange,gold,green,blue,darkviolet,deeppink);border-radius:1em;text-shadow:2px 0#000;color:#fff"> 4 🧚‍♂ am  KING   09:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But why would we ignore that? Trump is the black hole at the swirling center of US politics. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, that's your view; but we usually follow the judgment of reliable sources, and they think it's big news, judging by their front pages, at least much more so than the snooker championships or horse races we blurb out of some reflex.  Sandstein   10:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Meh Is it front page news around the world? Most certainly.  Is it likely to be enduring or massively significant?  That I'm less convinced by; after all, the vast majority of the people considering voting for Trump aren't going to be put off by this, especially as they're probably credulous enough to believe him when he says it's made up. Weak support. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's a swath of people strongly put off by sex abuse that don't really care about the intricacies of say, exorbitant business tax fraud. I support this being included on the main page because it's a subtle game changer. UpdateNerd (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it though (a game changer) when it comes to a legal case? It doesnt raise or alter any points of law so its not a defining case in that way. The law that allowed it to be brought (the change in statute on civil cases in NYC) has already resulted in other cases as far as I am aware, so this isnt the first. Isnt there another Trump case that hinges on if its ok to sue the ex-president? That one at least might set some precedent. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not it is a "game changer" or of lasting significance in any respect is speculation. Like @Black Kite, I suspect that it is not. But that does not matter. The purpose of ITN is that people can look up good articles about things that are currently big in the news. Well, this is big in the news, and the article is good. Everything else, in my view, is secondary.  Sandstein   11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Donald Trump is slated to be the frontrunner when the Republican primaries for the 2024 election start. He's the undisputed leader of the party at this point. It doesn't matter what the outcomes of the civil cases are, when you've already created a narrative that everyone is out to tear you down and your constituents believe it. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Sandsteins arguments Josey Wales Parley 12:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was a civil trial, the period when criminal charges could have been brought forward having expired. The other trials/cases are all criminal trials and thus will have much more significant impact than this one. --M asem (t) 12:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Masem: I thought you believed that ITN should principally be about quality, or, in your own words, "existing quality articles with substantial updates of expected quality", so what exactly are the quality issues here that you object to? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are secondary issues beyond quality that still must be considered, such as the fact we gave rarely posted civil trial results but have posted criminal trial ones. We are not a news ticker and have further standards that keep us running a newsticker on the Main Page. M asem (t) 19:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Big deal... it's not like he's going to prison or anything like that. He forks over money and it's over.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 12:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose A civil judgement. One that may or may not make an impact on his electability should he run again. Unlikely given the weighty revelations before he was elected in 2017. CoatCheck (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * D (Depth) - There's a fair amount of coverage nationally, as well as in the BBC, but this story is not being internationally covered. This is likely because this is a civil case and not a criminal trial.
 * I (Impact) - This really impacts only the defendant and the plaintiff. Public opinion towards Donald Trump would likely not shift as a result of these proceedings. No one else is directly affected.
 * C (Consequences) - Donald Trump takes a relatively small financial hit, one that he can easily appeal, as the gears of the civil legal system slowly and painfully grind through the process.
 * E (Encyclopedic) - There is a standalone article, which has been significantly updated as a result of this trial's outcome.
 * I can't find myself supporting this item due to the general lack of importance, even if it does have a Wikipedia article to its name.--⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Reliable sources disagree with WaltCip's assessment of the impact of this; while the Republican Primary is considered unlikely to be affected, it is predicted that this will impact the general election. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd sure like to see those predictions you speak of. I presume they're reliably sourced from a major polling firm such as Gallup or Rasmussen. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still standing by for those reliable sources. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A civil court case which still has potential appeals is fairly mundane. The only possible interest is that the defendant is a former US President. We didn't run a story on Partygate when the British PM was fined under criminal law so there is no reason to run one on this.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 13:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in very good shape, news sources are covering this in a way that indicates significance. Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This case is not just a footnote on Trump's page, it has its own comprehensive article and and has received global RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be a volume on its own and not a footnote, but there are several other factors around Trump that are multicolored epics that have far more significance related to politics today. Not to trivialize a case of sexaual misconduct, but thus falls into the "arson, murder, and jaywalking" trope, being th least significant aspect under legal review. M asem (t) 13:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning support I've maintained that we should save all of the Trump legal woes for the big one, as that is the one most likely to put him in prison for a substantial period of time. However, I think that overlooks the fact that a jury found that the former president of the United States who has a good chance of being the next president of the United States raped a woman. Curbon7 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Categorically not true. In fact, the jury specifically threw out that allegation per the New York Times article: "The jury did not, however, find he had raped her, as she had long claimed." ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, sexually abused . Because that makes a big difference. Not. Curbon7 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, it's kind of a silly bit of semantics considering that not even the NYT could figure out why the jury wouldn't get him on that count given everything else - perhaps it's because that specific wording actually would have truly hurt his chances politically. Instead, now his supporters can say "but the jury didn't actually convict him of rape". ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not a criminal trial. Will be appealed. Relatively minor compared to what charges will likely be coming for him this summer. We can’t devote ITN to every new Trump story that makes it to the front page of the newspaper. Thriley (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose At first I thought it was a criminal conviction, so I was clear about my support in a hypothetical nomination. But seeing as it's ultimately a civil case, I don't think it's ITNR-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - mostly because we have already established that ITN does indeed do celebrity gossip. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Several things 1) That's not written anywhere. Start a discussion on the talk page if you want to establish a new rule. 2) Doing the wrong thing in the past doesn't mean that we're required to do the wrong thing forever.  We're always allowed to do the right thing today, even if we did the wrong thing in the past 3) Voting against your own wishes to point out the fact that we did something wrong in the past is not helpful.  Instead of doing all of that, you should assess the current story on its own merits, and make a decision as to what you think it would be best for Wikipedia to do, considering all of the available evidence, all of the existing Wikipedia guidance at places like WP:ITN, and earnestly make a case for why you are voting the way you do.  What you just did is get all pissy because something was posted in the past even though you thought it shouldn't have been, and are acting petulant and saying "screw it, if we're going to be terrible, let's just go all the way and keep being terrible".  Don't do that.  Instead, have some intellectual honesty, make a case for this based on evidence and policies and guidelines, and also accept that sometimes, people will interpret evidence and policies and guidelines differently than you do, and that happens sometimes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Jayron, I really respect you generally, but this whole that we did the wrong thing in the past doesnt mean we keep doing it in the future thing is what results in, over time, an entrenched disparate impact, and beyond that, its a pretty poor argument for "the past" is a few days ago and still the top blurb. Im not pissy, but the people here regularly show a complete disregard for any consistent standards on how to determine whether or not something should be included. If we are going to include things that are widely covered but of minimal importance then that should be applied consistently. Otherwise, what you are effectively saying is that the bias of the voters of this board controls the content. And that is the intellectually dishonest thing. Im fine with what the consensus is on posting things that dont matter, eg a coronation. But then there are logical consequences to that decision. People here keep making opposing arguments based on their personal preferences. My view is that if the coverage of the coronation made it so its utter lack of any consequence not a blocker to being posted then the same thing is true here. Because "celebrity gossip" is manifestly not a reason to not include, and for that proof see that linked diff, then this should likewise be included. And there is *nothing* intellectually dishonest about that statement. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've never voted based on what I think about something's importance. I assess whether or not news sources are giving it prominence to indicate that it is significant, and I assess the article quality.  As I don't have complete knowledge of the entire world, I don't feel comfortable assessing significance based on my own experiences, which are limited.  Instead, I read, observe, and learn about each proposed topic, and assess based on that evidence.  So telling me that I show a "show a complete disregard for any consistent standards" is simply not true.  I've never done such a thing.  I have always voted based on what I think is my best attempt at a consistent, objective assessment of evidence and of the standards.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know you dont. I was not referring to you at all here, I think your voting is consistently sound and based on an analysis of the sources presented. One of the reasons I respect you. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * support was about to opposing this. But, I do think this is an historic verdict considering Trump is a former US President.BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All changes are for events before he was president (the defamation while he was campaigning), so this gas nothing to do with his time as president M asem (t) 14:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Politicized celebrity news at this point. Little to no real world significance. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, it is front-page news around the world. It is not merely "politicized celebrity news" when the person found guilty is the front-running GOP candidate for the US presidency. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Front page news? Cool. We're not a news ticker. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all the reasons above. This isn't Trumpipedia, and it seems like anything where Trump makes headlines gets tossed onto ITN. Much like the indictments, this is likely to not go anywhere anytime soon. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a verdict???? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. What I meant is that nothing of consequence is likely to come of it. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Historic for their to be a civil or criminal conviction of a former POTUS. <span style="font-family:Linux Libertine, Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk  15:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Suffers from WP:PROSELINE, long unbroken sections, and unencyclopedic tone. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 15:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a civil case not criminal. The legal bar for a guilty verdict is lower. And he dodged the most serious accusation. This is veering a little too close to celebrity tabloid stuff for my comfort level. Have we ever posted a civil case against a former PM or president of any country? For that matter, have we ever posted a civil case verdict against any individual person? Wait until the various criminal cases play out. If he is convicted of a felony, I will support posting that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 16:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The arraignment/indictment was ITN notable as it was actual criminal charges of a US President through the justice system; this is a civil case/lawsuit like any other. The Kip (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even a criminal charge. There are thousands of such cases resolved every week around the world. Just because one is a celebrity is unimportant.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment ... so, this seems like another example of a well updated page that people are voting against despite objective levels of global coverage. So, the entire global news circuit thinks this is news, and the article has been updated, but we're not going to post it at "in the news" because editors think that their own editorial opinion about what is relevant is more important than that of professional journalism. This is basically WP:SYNTH-lite. The reliable, secondary, independent news sources say it is news, so what gives? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The answer is primarily WP:NOTNEWS. The enduring notability of it has been questioned, because, as noted above, it's not a criminal case, but a civil settlement where Trump agreed to pay about 5 million to end the case. There will be neither conviction, nor barring from presidential elections, even Trump's indictment will not ban him from running for president. There has been a certain media circus around him, giving a false impression of notability, so we have to exercise editorial judgement in that particular area. I'd support posting everything that results in some meaningful historical impact on Trump, but this is not the case. Brandmeistertalk  17:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are questions about its enduring notability, then WP:FAILN requires that it be merged into another article or nominated for deletion. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, maybe? I've been looking all over to see what notability guidelines we have around civil cases, and we don't seem to have one (or really for legal cases at all really). However, it's not a "we don't post at ITN, therefore we delete" deal.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The notability guideline is WP:GNG. If anybody legitimately thinks that this trial hasn't gotten significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects, then I don't know what we're doing here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot overrule policies and guidelines. If it is notable, then ITN can't decide it's WP:SENSATIONAL or WP:TRIVIAL. And if it's not notable, then WP:FAILN provides instructions on how to proceed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a settlement; it is a verdict. It is not out of court; he has been tried and found liable by a jury of his peers. The former president of the United States, not a random celebrity, has essentially been found guilty of sexual abuse. This is not a normal event; it is not a routine event; this rather seems like it should be obvious, but it's a pretty exceptional event. A former or sitting president hasn't been dragged through the mud like this since Nixon or Clinton. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have struggled with ITN standards for some time, but as I keep having to say, frequency of coverage is an easy bar to clear in a general sense. Most large media outlets cover most events. Is this event notable beyond many of them? Yes, but if we posted everything that was in the news we would be adding probably a dozen articles a day. Is coverage worth noting? Yes. Is article quality worth noting? Yes. However, that is hardly some automatic bar for ITN inclusion. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Please remind me when was the last we posted a civil case hereon ITN between individuals (we did not post Depp v. Heard). The only ITN worthy cases of Trump or other heads/former heads would be convictions, this is not it. Should not have posted his indictment either which opened the floodgate we see here. Gotitbro (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't Hollywood crap; it's a former US president - you know, the guy elected every four years who essentially commands global geopolitics. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “commands global geopolitics”. That was a nice dad joke. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Believe the last civil case we posted was actually Dominion v Fox a few weeks back, but that was one of the largest settlements of all time. The Kip (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Per Masem. ITN doesn't stand for "In Trump news". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A billionaire paying US$5 million isn't super notable, and ITN does not document all of Trump's legal troubles. DecafPotato (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. ITN is not "Trump In the News". Not everything pertaining to him must be on ITN. This is not Trump's biggest roadblock to re-election, and even postulating on the matter is CRYSTAL. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose very minor, with no apparent long-term consequences. Banedon (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing: Manipur violence

 * Oppose The trending link in the nomination seemed too dependendent on particular keywords. A more general version just has the name of each region and expands the time-frame to a week.  This indicates that the trend is down and now comparable with Sudan.  There are many places with ongoing violence – see list of ongoing armed conflicts.  I think we should link to the full list rather than trying to play favourites. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Without any key terms at all, a raw search for country names is pretty meaningless. Country names pop up in everything: weather, sports coverage, etc. Even so, that ironically shows that Manipur (a tiny region) is competing with countries. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Andrew Davidson: Ok, "war" was a better key term for both Ukraine/Sudan. That's updated. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I just think bringing comparative Google trends into this - from the initial nomination, no less, not even after some !vote brings up importance - is unnecessary and again seems to go against purpose (of ITN being a feeder to highlight articles that may be of interest due to news items); that is, links to news are all that's needed for that justification, and if editors want to discuss significance it should be case-by-case as factors are never as simple as how many people are searching X at a greater rate this week compared to last than Y. Kingsif (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should not really be using Google Trends (ITN is not a popularity contest). Gotitbro (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Except that's kind of what it is right now as a bunch of personal feels-based votes by editors; the true terror of Google Trends is that it threatens to introduce a modicum of impartial objectivity. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Any objectivity it offers is in terms of what is being searched at a greater rate than others, which isn't a factor that is generally considered for ITN posting. Subjective "doesn't feel worth posting to me", a judgment of the article and its news item based on own understanding of what gets posted to ITN, is actually better (as I see it) Kingsif (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Item as posted is sufficient; article not receiving significant continuous updates meriting posting to Ongoing.  Spencer T• C 04:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Spencer: Hi, you original post pre-empted much updating. I'd appreciate you looking again. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support moving to ongoing once it rolls off the bottom of the blurb list. Article was posted on May 3, and has continued to receive updates since then, I can see explicit dates of May 4, May 7, and May 9, and several undated events occurred or were reported as recently as yesterday.  Seems to meet the ongoing standards just fine.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Further to the above, this is still very much an ongoing situation. A policeman was killed, five more injured and a soldier stabbed today, alongside several abductions of civilians. That's what is leaking out with an internet blackout. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support For the same reason I supported the blurb. The article is receiving frequent updates, and this is not random violence but targeted militant activity; several soldiers and police shot and at least one killed, and an MLA nearly beat to death. It's not as high-octane as, say, the Sudan conflict, but it is certainly a significant ongoing event. Curbon7 (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The violence continued over the weekend, leading to fresh displacements ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Günter Wewel

 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good for ITNRD. Good sourcing + large enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heather Armstrong (Dooce)

 * Support once lead issue is fixed. Other than that the article appears to be in good quality. I'm not sure on the naming myself, personally I think it should just be the name of the article but if that does work then WP:COMMONNAME maybe better rules to follow. Captain  Galaxy  23:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, I actually don't see the lead issue as a problem because it isn't more than four grafs. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And now it's clearly too short. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — The depth of sourcing really doesn't match the length of the article. This should be expected for a project which keeps throwing around "the sum total of human knowledge" to describe itself, all the while actually trying to be "the sum total of what people happen to notice today within certain portions of the 21st century". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  04:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Insufficient lead.—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A long second sentence added.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have fixed the 'lead too short' issues, so the article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arman Soldin

 * Oppose. The lead does not adequately summarize the article and the education section is entirely unsourced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Short lead + unsourced Education section = not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Edward Cullen

 * Oppose for now, pending improvements to the article's sourcing. The "Early life and education" subsection has only a single citation at the very end, and it does not verify either the assertion to which it has been added, nor anything else in the previous two paragraphs. The next section, "Ordination and ministry", could also use a couple more&mdash;for instance, at the end of the first sentence: On May 19, 1962, Cullen was ordained to the priesthood for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia by Archbishop John Krol in the Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in Philadelphia. Finally, under "Retirement and legacy", there is a contentious assertion being made about his actions within the Diocese of Allentown, but the citation provided does not adequately verify this claim. I'll try to find some new references to add to the article. Hopefully we can address the sourcing issues soon enough for it to approved for an RD listing. Kurtis (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's why source spot checks are important! Thanks. Curbon7 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced that wrong link in the cite template. The sourcing was apparently meant for info in the wikibio of Cullen's successor. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

(posted to RD): Denny Crum

 * Support Adequate sourcing now, sufficient breadth.—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Length and sourcing both look good. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: David Miranda

 * Support pending fixes Heartbreaking. Article looks fine for the most part, except the orange tags on the controversies section. The text in that section doesn't seem unreasonable to me on a cursory read, so probably it'd be okay to fold that into the career section and just drop the "controversies" heading. However, I'll defer to someone who knows more about these allegations and can read Portuguese sources. Davey2116 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I did some reorganization on the article and expanded the part about his detention and subsequent court rulings (idk if that's enough for credit or not). There's one comment on the talk page about unrelated content about Bolsonaro's sons, which I've addressed too. Legoktm (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terrence Hardiman

 * Comment Does the selected filmography need to be sourced? If so, oppose, and if not, support. Article quality is now indisputably good enough to post onto ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have just sourced that section.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 10:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @The C of E I've changed my !vote. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Needs work to comply with MOS:LEAD, and it uses unreliable sources, including IMDB and Goodreads. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the imdb source but there are no Goodreads sources in the article. I have also amended the lead so its more inline with MOS:LEAD.  The C of E God Save the King!  ( talk ) 19:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Goodreads source had already been removed. Changing my !vote to support. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Everything seems to check out here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(posted to RD): Joe Kapp

 * Support Article is of good enough quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is ok for ITN Alex-h (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Outstanding sourcing tags .—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Struck per improvements (below).—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose several outstanding CN tags. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Me and Tails Wx have worked on sourcing the article, and I see only one cn left (and ITNCRIT says one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted as of now, no cn tags are in the article. Looks good.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rita Lee

 * Oppose Article has an orange tag that hasn't been fixed in nearly 10 years. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - still unready. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Kemal Derviş

 * Comment the article is great, and there are a lot sources; however there's a lot of key sentences that need to be sourced (for example: that he was key in Turkey's EU accession talks, that he had made decisions regarding the lira etc.). Maybe the sources are all there but they need to placed in the correct sentences. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. It's close, but the sourcing isn't quite there. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * would you mind taking a second peek at this? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 21:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support: Fairly Sound. Has some loosely cited stretches on some mundane WB details. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not yet ready If there were only a couple of minor sentences that are uncited, that is no big deal and shouldn't hamper the article's posting if all else is fine. However, the entire paragraph about the subject's career with the World Bank is wholly uncited, as well as a couple of other spots which may be considered "contentious". Curbon7 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * His high-level position in the most important financial institution in the developing world is certainly not a "mundane detail". Curbon7 (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please take another peek, if you have a chance. I've fixed up many of those unsourced areas with sourcing. Cheers, and atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my comment as I'll take your word on it, but I don't have time to re-check, very busy this week. Curbon7 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marc Lalonde

 * Oppose Four citations, 2 of which are at the end for his death and the other two for his awards. Needs sourcing work ASAP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please put CN tags where they are needed? It would help me so much with sourcing. Thanks! Rushtheeditor (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be at a minimum one citation at the end of each paragraph. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Finished citing! Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I'd get rid of the redlink - but an obvious support. A very well known cabinet minister in his time - for over a decade, including two of the biggest portfolios (Justice and Finance); perhaps I'm one of the few here to remember him though. I even almost bumped into him once when Turner was PM; while being a tourist in the Centre Block, he saw the tour coming and turned around and went back up the stairs! Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article is OK for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  One-sentence lead, needs a tad bit more overview.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Tad more was added.—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support an article with this much of the body must be having a better lede. Please add some more summarised stuff in the lede. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  14:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yaseen Akhtar Misbahi

 * Weak oppose Article is somewhat bare-bones if you take out the giant list sandwich in the middle. Needs expansion in order for this to be put on ITNRD. Support Article is now of ITNRD quality. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000, a new look, please? ─ The Aafī   (talk)  05:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have updated the article, copyedited, and fixed all the referencing-stuff. Good to go in my opinion. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  05:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Length and referencing are sufficient. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Brownsville crash

 * Conditional support this seems to be a hate-motivated attack. Support posting if it turns out to be intentional. 142.186.19.181 (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It happened several days ago and the article is still only a stub.  Schwede 66  12:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Authorities are saying they don't even know if it's a hate-related attack. There are suggestions he was drunk, and has history of drunk driving. Nfitz (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't really see why the time of the event is relevant for its posting: it's far from being stale, as the latest event in the front page (King Charles III's and Queen Camilla's coronation) took place the day before, on 6 May. The article currently is a Start class, and its quality should be good enough for posting. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not significant for ITN, and the article is still only a stub, with few details. Natg 19 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Patrick J. McGrath

 * Support. Sourcing isn't perfect, but it's not enough of an issue to oppose. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added two cn tags. Once the two citations get added, I'll change my vote to support. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Soňa Červená

 * Comment: I added a more serious ref instead of Operissimo (which is a copy), and referenced those awards, adding a few others. We have now obits in English (AP). I think it's good enough, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It could afford to be better organized, but it's good enough in terms of length and referencing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Palmirinha Onofre

 * Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic enough for our purposes. AGF on the Pt language sources. Curbon7 (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grace Bumbry

 * Support trailblazer, several long form obits internationally. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Gigantic reputation amongst opera fans. Very major death. MattiaBattistini (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Poor sourcing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is now well-sourced. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I got rid of many citation tags today, but won't be able to do more today. Please check again tomorrow, or whenever someone else has cleared the rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added quite a few sources since making this nomination, but need to take a break. Hopefully some others can chip in, otherwise I'll resume in a couple hours. Funcrunch (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please look again, User:Thebiguglyalien and all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ready. It was sufficient earlier, too.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Much improved since it was first nominated. Well done to all. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Seán Keane (fiddler)

 * Oppose. Poor referencing. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Larry Mahan

 * Support - Article looks pretty good to me. Decently sized, good citations, good overview of subject's life. Mahan won numerous awards over his decades-long career and was a world champion. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I filled in a couple missing refs, and it looks ready. Jusdafax (talk) 05:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment The Discogs source cited is unreliable (WP:RSDISCOGS)—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have removed the challenged source, the track listings and your tag, and added additional sourced material including his modest comments regarding his music. Jusdafax (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Viktor Djalilov

 * Opposing on quality and notability - I'm afraid there isn't much in the article supporting why the subject deserves an RD mention. The section detailing his career chronologically is fine, but why this coach over many others? Article is not yet ready. —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 04:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll note that I also think the article isn't ready for posting yet, but the article being start-class isn't itself a problem. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 04:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article still has unsourced content. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Syria's reinstatement to the Arab League

 * Oppose - Bolded article is in really poor condition and would need to be improved before posting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Onegreatjoke; article has an orange tag + 2 CN tags. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I support posting this one in theory, once the issues above are resolved. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Target article has sourcing issues, an entire section is tagged as needing sources, there are additional cn tags as well. Would be willing to support when and if that is fixed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So... I've been in the process of looking up sources for the aforementioned section, starting with these two sentences from the very first paragraph: Another industry that is growing steadily in the Arab League is telecommunications. Within less than a decade, local companies such as Orascom and Etisalat have managed to compete internationally. On that front, I have good news and bad news: • Good News: I found a pretty thorough citation documenting the economic potential of the Arab telecommunications industry. • Bad News: It's from McKinsey, specifically McKinsey Quarterly. For those of you who don't know what McKinsey is, read it... and weep vociferiously. I'm not entirely sure that McKinsey can be regarded as a reliable source. Even if it is, would it be prudent to avoid linking to the website of a company that has had such an extensive history of corruption on a global scale? I don't see them listed anywhere at WP:RSP, so I gather it hasn't really been discussed much as of yet. Kurtis (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if it is sourced to McKinsey (which is very likely the original source of the information, even if the original person to add it was too lazy to do so), then it isn't likely reliable. McKinsey is basically a PR firm for autocrats and companies looking to cover up obscene negligence.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ha! Nice description. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont think the history of corruption is relevant in this particular instance; I think it's a reliable source for a statement like " compete internationally and the industry is growing in the Arab world." That said I'm not sure the section needs that statement. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a reliable source for even saying that the sky is blue. Either remove the text or find a real source.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(NEEDS DECISION) Peruvian gold mine fire

 * Support once expanded Article is three lines at this point, but 27 deaths is notable enough for ITN inclusion. Infinity (talk - contributions) 18:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I expanded it, but I'm not sure if I did enough to make it ready for ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Besides being a stub, no evidence has been presented that this subject is notable. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is quite poor, and notability is questionable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub, with little useful information beyond what the proposed blurb says. A massive expansion would be needed to make this main page ready.  Would support if anyone did that.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Meh. It's probably enough to be just barely over the line, but it could still benefit from more.  But it's well referenced, and well written, and it does contain the basic information.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I expanded it, but I'm not sure if I did enough to make it ready for ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Article quality is good enough, and it's notable enough. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on qual, still a stub folks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The article currently stands as a Start class and is good enough to be posted. This is also an unprecedented disaster with a high death toll. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: High/unusual death toll for an industrial accident in the 21st century + Peru's worst since 2000. Article quality now appears to be sufficient, though it could do with more information on the government/public's response to the incident. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's notable enough for ITN & the article quality seems like it's good enough. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Article quality is still not good enough for the Main Page. Needs work asap. Side note, should we really be using the term 'eliminated' to describe the deaths of dozens of people? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

New PM in Slovakia

 * Conditional support - article is currently a stub. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 17:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not Ready per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is not up to par for ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I have expanded the article significantly, but it'll likely need a Slovakian speaker to expand it further. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. There's basically no information on his political career or how he came to be designated the next prime minister.  It talks some about some random jobs he's held throughout his career, but there's no lead-up to the designation as prime minister, it reads like he was randomly plucked out of the blue.  What was he doing in the government that led to him being a candidate?  How did the process of selecting him go?  It needs a LOT of work to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - another confusing thing is that Prime Minister of Slovakia still lists Eduard Heger. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  02:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the article, "Ódor will replace him, effective 15 May, according to President Zuzana Čaputová". DecafPotato (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that mean that we should wait until May 15, or whenever he actually becomes prime minister? Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait if the article says that he is scheduled to become PM on May 15, we should be waiting until then. Plus the article is in bad condition, compared to other world leader articles. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The article has been expanded, though this should be re-nominated when he takes office tomorrow. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vida Blue

 * Support Article currently has a work in progress tag but looks to be in decent shape as is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Jusdafax (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good, well cited and long enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Allen Texas outlet mall shooting

 * Oppose routine event, no expectations of long-term consequences. That time of the week again in the States, I suppose. Juxlos (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine event. Not even the first mass shooting in Texas this week. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - we'd post this if it happened elsewhere. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, we'd post it if it didn't happen in a country which has had 196 mass shootings already in 2023. And it's only May.  The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We aren't discussing posting the other mass shootings. We are discussing posting this one. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  10:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the point is making is that there is nothing specifically exceptional about this event that justifies it being on the main page. This event is not as globally newsworthy as, say, the Serbia attacks because the world expects this to happen weekly. Portal:Current events is filled with tons of murders/deaths every week that include both more people (e.g. 2023 Africa floods) that we don't mention in ITN. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Indeed, only a minor correction, the world expects this to happen at least daily. Of no consequence, no long-term impact, 196 and counting. Just 1.5 mass shootings a day. That’s why we can safely ignore this particular inconsequential event. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If a bomb by far-right terrorists detonated in the middle of New York City, killing 3 people, it would be headline news. If a bomb by Taliban (before 2021, anyway) detonated in the middle of a busy market in Kabul, killing 10 people, that's not going to pass the stub mark. Fact of the matter is where things happen matter a lot, and mass shootings are page 3 news in the US unless a couple dozen kids are killed. Juxlos (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And even then. There's a racial/socioeconomic angle to it too, where shootings in certain localities are downplayed, and those in affluent areas are more likely to receive coverage. There is a nationwide as well as a worldwide numbing to these sorts of events. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We know the drill, with all the exact same noms on ITN this year alone. Nominators should impose a moratorium before they rush to propose these, nothing here sets this shooting apart as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine in the USA. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Another day, another American spree killing. Ericoides (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's true that a good many people in the community are impacted and hurt by this. Unfortunately, the long-term consequences of such a shooting are - by their idiosyncratic nature of being in the U.S. - basically nil. The coverage will also inevitably fade away as has been the case with all stories of this type, with no follow-up of any kind from state or federal government. I'd be open to the idea of a moratorium but that's not something ITN really does per se, because every story can be different in its own way regardless of the body count. But in this specific instance, there aren't any unusual characteristics that set this story apart. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This was a close a call. Unfortunately mass shootings in the US are so common that I have found it necessary to consider some, admittedly arbitrary, criteria to look for, lest we turn ITN into an endless catalogue of American mass murder. Absent evidence of terrorism or a hate crime type motive I typically will support if the death toll is in the double digits. While not generally a fan of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, the situation in the US is unique in the developed world and some sort of criteria needs to be applied. For good or ill, this is mine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Normal in the United States. List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 gives 198 already. What would be news is if people in the US could go 1 day without shooting each other... 31.21.114.36 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 La Vuelta Femenina

 * Writing the other stage reports at present, will be updated soon. Tables and lead of article is up to date. Turini2 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now fixed, article fully updated and cited. Turini2 (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Good prose update, the Vuelta is a major sporting event. Recommend bold-typing the event name in the blurb. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-written and well-cited. The Kip (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It sounds like this an important cycling event & the article's in good shape. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article should be held up as an example of how sports event articles should be written. There's excellent, detailed, and well-referenced prose for every part of the event, just great.  We should be proud to direct readers to the article.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Spencer T• C 02:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - not suggesting we pull this, but I'm somewhat surprised it's been posted. WP:ITNR mentions only the Tour de France, with an expected story count of 1. Now I could clearly see a case for adding Tour de France Femmes to that list, but we don't routinely post the men's Vuelta or Giro d'Italia, and if we were to post all those for both men and women we'd end up with six cycling stories a year rather than one. Which might be excessive when compared to other sports, based on proportional worldwide interest and coverage. Something to think about anyway. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ITNR doesn’t limit events that can be posted, only those that don’t need a discussion on notability. This event had unanimous support for posting. Stephen 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s an exceptionally well-written sports article of some importance. Hence I lend my support after the fact.  Schwede 66  20:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe people are realizing the value of fresh, quality content. Or just wanted a different picture up. —Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Kozik

 * Still a couple of {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I've removed the offending sentences. Otherwise all sourced and seems perfectly viable. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Derek Keating

 * Support I've fixed the one citation needed tag. Article should be good to go! Tails   Wx  04:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Update Not sure if the solution was to merely remove the section header and nothing else. That also highlighted how unstructured the rest of the text is.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that the one-sentence lead indicates that the subject became TD in 2011, but the main prose mentions nothing that happened in 2011. Please expand that section. --PFHLai (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've expanded the section to elaborate on Keating becoming TD in 2011! Hope this helps! Tails   Wx  22:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the new paragraph, . I have also added a sentence to the lead, which had found to be too short earlier. Hope this helps. --PFHLai (talk) 08:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paulus Moa

 * Support. Long enough, well sourced, and has info about death. Good work on this article with such a quick turn around. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Menahem Pressler

 * Support Article quality is fine, no CN tags to be found and is well expanded. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 19:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good quality, no issues. Grimes2 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Long enough, well sourced, has info about death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Newton N. Minow

 * Support, but there is one CN tag that needs to be fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Not that bad for posting. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Cn tags outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Long enough, almost entirely sourced, and has info about death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support One cn tag shouldn't prevent an article from posting. Overall looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 149th Kentucky Derby

 * The Kip (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to "not ready" as it's probably a better descriptor of my vote, considering it's an ITNR item. The Kip (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article isn’t great but it hits the bar for ITN now. The Kip (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unwilling support It's ITN/R, Lord only knows why This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it's the most famous animal race in America. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then we should ITN/R articles for 200 more countries. Camel Cup? Nfitz (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's one of the most famous in the world and qualification involves European, North American, Arabian and Japanese races. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Ready per The Kip. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a prose summary of the race. Would you consider it ready now? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R means unquestionably notable. See no major issue with article quality. --Pithon314 (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no prose summary of the race itself and/or aftermath, just the lead-up and a table. The Kip (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a prose summary of the race. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Article needs help, then support It might also be worth finding a picture of Mage for the ITN as well, and include it here. But article is much like several horses in the Derby, needing expansion and help.
 * Weak Support Article quality is not great, but there's a prose update of the race itself. Looks sufficient.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Jayron32. Not wowed by the article, but it's adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is fine for the Main Page. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - quality is fine. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The quality is bad. You can tell that the article hasn't been carefully checked when there's a tense error in the first paragraph.  I could go on at length... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The tense error is fixed. What else? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is in much better shape now ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It seems like the article is good enough now. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Habib Chaab

 * Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A stub with only 136 words of prose. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 10:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It’s a stub.  Schwede 66  20:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nabeesa Ummal

 * Support Article is well cited and of good enough quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support length and quality is sufficient. Juxlos (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good enough for ITN Alex-h (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Coronation of Charles III and Camilla

 * Oppose. We already posted Charles ascension as King, we shouldn't post his coronation as well - similar to how we posted Biden's election as President, but we didn't post his inauguration. BilledMammal (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Charles III already started serving as the De Facto King since September, we're just posting old news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I was wondering if someone was going to nominate this. We don't post inaugurations, and that's when the power actually is transferred. This is actually less than an inauguration, as the power transferred to him when he ascended to the throne. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  06:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You say that "we don't post inaugurations", but there's no policy or guideline to support that. It sounds like a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that can be overruled at any time. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support – This is in the news more than usual presidential inaugurations (because of its ceremonial and historic nature), and has been receiving wide coverage for weeks and will likely see constant coverage for this weekend. DecafPotato (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ...The Presidential inauguration was also in the news everywhere. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the whole weekend of constant coverage this is poised to get, nor the dedicated sections to news about the coronation on websites like Reuters and BBC – there's a difference between being in the international news (which for the inauguration, assuming you're talking about Biden's, was certainly helped by January 6 in terms of coverage, and is not representative of all inaugurations) and being stuck to the front page of international news for weeks. DecafPotato (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Once this is done, I highly doubt this will be in the international news at all. I've no idea what it's like elsewhere, but here in the US, it wasn't front page news at all (until now, but that's because it's actually happening). -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it hasn't been in the news in the US. You've not had a monarch since 1776! Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral On one end, it is likely going to be (at least in the Anglosphere) one of the biggest events of the year. On the other hand, it is a relic of the past, the last hurrah of a dying (or dead) empire. Curbon7 (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no indication that this is a "last hurrah" for the British monarchy...that seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL material. DecafPotato (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, you missed my point. The monarchy is probably fine anyways. Curbon7 (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on what you've written here it sounds like a support would be in order. "One of the biggest events of the year for the entire anglosphere" demonstrates significance, "a last hurrah" (if it were true, which is impossible to say) demonstrates lasting impact. Flyingfishee (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm finding the oppose arguments much more convincing than the support arguments, particularly and that it's  with no manifested significance. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I've been mulling this over, and I suppose the article being high-quality is what pushes this over the edge for me. I think comparisons to presidential inaugurations are in-good-faith, but I think there is a difference in time-scale, and the "first in seventy years" schick works for me. I will be opposing William's whenever that comes, but that's beyond the point. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as this is obviously very significant, and front page news around the world. Those opposing this should seriously considering whether any biases or pre-disposed opinions they might have are obscuring their view of what counts as ITN. That being said it doesn't happen for a few hours so I think it would be best to wait until the coronation actually happens before posting. Flyingfishee (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already established that we don't post inaugurations, even though they also generate headline news. I don't see how a coronation that is nothing but a formality and actually has no effect in law (as he has been king since September!) is any different. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do we post sporting events then if they don't have any effect in law and instead are just spectacles watched by millions? Flyingfishee (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is in great shape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  06:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is obviously today's big story – it is, for example, already the lead article in the NYT, which has more articles about it too. The other sections of the main page are running relevant items and so, if ITN snubs the event, it will mainly make this section look incompetent and irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is Wikipedia UKPedia? -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  08:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it has the good taste not to feature yet another predictable spree killing? Ericoides (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The NYT is an American newspaper, not a UK one. On a personal note, I walked around the scene yesterday and then wound up with beer in St Stephen's Tavern.  We had a pleasant chat with some other patrons including a lady from the Philippines, who was pleased to have seen her President there, and a party of ladies from Long Island who had made a special trip.  It generally seemed to be a good-natured international event.  For contrast, see the recent elections which got plenty of news coverage but are more parochial. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN is not a news ticker. We do not expect to mimic what newspapers may cover, we don't care if something is a front page story, or the like. M asem (t) 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Biden parallel is quite apt. Just like a US presidential inauguration, this is big headline news, but at present we are not regarded as a news ticker. We posted Charles's accession to the throne, and this event just follows on from that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a "news ticker" type event, it has not been seen for 70 years. It's really not comparable to a US presidential inauguration, which happens on a routine cycle. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. In the news, article is of sufficient quality. Event is going to be watched around the world and the idea that it shouldn't be on the front page because US inaugurations are somehow comparable is asinine and just comes across as sour grapes. The coronation of the head of state for multiple countries internationally is obviously newsworthy and of interest to millions. Even if just purely a ceremonial event. (Hint, the entire monarchy is a ceremonial series of events. It's a ceremonial position.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an asinine argument. The coronation is not an important event, and this is not UKPedia. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  07:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The Commonwealth realms go beyond just the UK, and 2) Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. 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. DecafPotato (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but comparing this to an inauguration seems appropriate. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support mostly because this hasn't happened for a very long period of time, and it's also widely covered in the news and broadcast everywhere. For those comparing it with presidential inaugurations, note that the last time this happened was 70 years ago (almost like the Halley's Comet), when many of us were not even born, whereas presidential inaugurations typically happen every 4-7 years. I'd perhaps oppose this in case monarchs changed fairly frequently and coronations were commonplace (for instance, comparable to the time span between two presidential inaugurations).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Charles is 74; there is a good chance there will be another coronation before we see two more presidential inaugurations. BilledMammal (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the first coronation in 70 years, not the next one that no-one knows when will happen (see WP:CRYSTALBALL).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support An event that is happening after a very long time and which is definitively in the news. And, as mentioned by Andrew, the rest of the Main Page is in on it as well - we should not rest behind. Gotitbro (talk) 08:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Once-in-generations event, attended by heads of states and government dignitaries from all over the world, and huge coverage by the media that have also been running ton of articles and op-eds about the monarchy since last month in anticipation of the main event. StellarHalo (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BilledMammal. Banedon (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - this is an historic event whether we like it or not. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very similar to the inauguration of the US President. It's in the news, but it is merely a formal acknowledgement of a succession that we marked back when it happened. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - definitely ITN. It's an important and historic event, first time in 70 years this has happened. It's not just a celebration in the United Kingdom, but throughout the Commonwealth. A comparison between this and a U.S. presidential inauguration just doesn't exist. Estar8806 (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - The UK is the only European country that still uses a coronation and a few in the whole world. The Coronation is probably the bigest event in this year in the Anglosphere. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - entertainment trivia that we already covered when he became king. This is theater not news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 10:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - An occassion certainly worthy of note, the first coronation in the United Kindom since 1950s. roketjack (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support First European (Christian) coronation of a monarch since 1963 and the main news story globally. Quite obviously on a different level than a presidential inauguration. I also note that we blurbed both Obama's election and his inauguration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn’t European Christian pedia, and while itn was a different place 15 years ago, if the British get their first Black king I guess I could support that coronation as that would definitely actually be news. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a generally accepted argument at ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good thing I didnt make an argument like that, as opposed to say somebody saying I dont believe these were elections. Or the WP:ILIKEIT corollary, "it's important for European Christians". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most reasonable people would regard referring to a rarely used thousand-year-old religious rite of investiture as "entertainment" and "theatre," as a specie of I DON'T LIKE IT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think most people say most people when they mean themselves and aim to distract from their own faults. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am content to let that comment stand on its own merits and the community can draw their own conclusions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Charles' ascension to the throne was already covered in ITN last year, the coronation is merely a formal ceremony. Redthreadhx (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support sure, the ITN/R part about succession was already covered, but this is certainly a newsworth event in itself. Juxlos (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support First coronation of a British monarch in 70 years, this is a unique event and very different from an American presidential inauguration, which I see other editors making comparisons to. This is a well known event of great religious, political, and historical significance to all the peoples of the Commonwealth and even farther beyond the Anglosphere. Definitely going to be one of the biggest events of the year, if not the biggest, and is clearly worthy of ITN. I need not explain how the event of a coronation obviously has more of an impact than an accession. To all those people who are still insisting that this well-publicised and the most widely anticipated event of the year has little to no significance, think again; Elizabeth's coronation was not only one the biggest events of 1953, it was also one of largest events of the entire 20th century. All the arguments against posting this ultimately sum to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I believe this to be unique enough compared to a presidential inauguration and as mentioned above, this is considered at the very least in the Anglo-Sphere, one of the biggest events of the year. Captain  Galaxy  11:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Accession was already posted. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose firstly, the amount of royal over-reporting on Wikipedia is already baffling and biased towards all things royal. Secondly, have we not learned anything since the mistakes when the previous monarch died? Thirdly, when democratically elected leaders are nominated at ITN for smaller states there's at least half a dozen people saying "this head of state is not important enough"; well certainly a completely ceremonial and an ultimately meaningless role is surely even less notable; the local elections results in England last night frankly have a much bigger impact on the country. Fourthly, no other monarch would have a chance of being nominated this often. Furthermore as per previous comments, we had, death of previous monarch, funeral of previous monarch (with a full reactions, ceremony, and other trivia separate pages as well), ascension of the new monarch, now coronation? It's far too much. Finally we are not a gossip page nor a tabloid, which is basically what the royals are: celebrities, and what they do is not much different to what Hollywood stars, sportspeople and politicians do in their spare time or during PR-stunts, with the exception that that is all they do. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IIRC, the funeral wasn’t posted to ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was added to the initial blurb once it happened as far as I remember, it was definitely nominated again at ITN, regardless though, we still have a whole separate article for it. Regardless of that I remember the entire Wikipedia front page being all about it with absolutely nothing else on it. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * it was added to ongoing after I think four support votes. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these are valid objections. They're all WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments and don't count toward WP:CONSENSUS. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not like the local elections last night are going to be remembered for generations to come; the coronation definitely shall be. Ollieisanerd  (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't dismiss every argument against as "I don't like it" just to suit your own bias; I gave made very coherent arguments none of which are personal opinion. The coronation is actually already being widely ignored by most; so actually its not too different from local elections as "things that happened in England in May 2023". Abcmaxx (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If it's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then you shouldn't have a problem identifying the policies and guidelines that you were referencing with these arguments. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 19:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure: WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:ITNSIGNIF re number of articles about said event, WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:BIAS Abcmaxx (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you're invoking WP:NOTNEWS or WP:SENSATIONAL, then you're saying that Coronation of Charles III and Camilla is a news story that lacks WP:NOTABILITY and should be deleted; if that's the case, nominate it at AfD. WP:EXCESSDETAIL is about article size and has nothing to do with this. Accusations of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:ADVOCACY are serious and I recommend you bring evidence before casting aspersions at the nominator. WP:BIAS and WP:ITNSIGNIF are not policies or guidelines and cannot be enforced as if they were. You have no policy basis for your arguments, they're just your personal opinions about why you don't want it posted. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:ITNSIGNIF: "Arguments based on personal interest and knowledge are rarely sufficient to generate agreement among the community - interest in the royals is equivalent to fandom, the same reasons we don't post which celebrity attended which gala or which footballer moved to which club. Same applies to "Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage". Wikipedia isn't a British monarchist webpage, it's an encyclopedia, and shouldn't be turned into one. I don't see the whole page being dedicated to Leicester City when they won the Premier League for the first time in 133 years, and that was an ITN/R event. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ITNSIGNIF is not a policy or guideline, it was not created through the WP:PROPOSAL process, and it has no authority over the main page. Even so, it's quite a stretch to say that we can't include certain types of historical events on ITN because they have a "fandom". You personally might consider it trivial or unimportant, but that means bugger all when considering Wikipedia policy. Again, if you think there's a policy-based reason why it's non-notable, then nominate it for deletion. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I really hope I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems like you're saying to disregard WP:ITN because it isn't a formal P&G. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and maybe WP:PROJPAGE. A group of editors in one corner of a project cannot come up with their own set of rules independent of P&G. The suggestions at ITN have no more weight than a user essay. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously. Huge ceremonial event cared about by hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people. Head of state of multiple countries. One of the most 'obvious' nominations of the year. Of course there are small number of people who don't 'get it': that is their choice, but 'I don't like this' is not a valid reason here! 31.21.114.36 (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The statistics routinely show that only around 15% of people in the UK are "excited about the coronation", so the "millions/billions" of people is simply not true. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Look here for one example. 'Most say they plan to participate in at least one activity surrounding the festivities this weekend ... Just over a third plan to opt out of coronation-related events entirely.'. So a majority in the UK alone. You've admitted elsehwere that you find this 'baffling' and you've compared the Head of State to a celebrity. It's okay that you don't understand it, but a shame you waste your time replying to others trying to spoil this event! 31.21.114.36 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To emphasise further with foreign outlets. CNN: top story. Wall Street Journal: top story. NBC: top story. New York Times: top story. Le Monde: top story. Die Welt: top story. El Pais: top story. NOS (Netherlands): top story. I know you're out of touch here, so good if you can take a step back and see the bigger picture. It is the world's #1 focus, and that fact that you 'don't like it' changes nothing. :) 31.21.114.36 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous. The CNN title is "Britons’ support for the monarchy is in long-term decline". Head of state only in name, serves no real purpose in terms of executive. Johnny Depp's trial with Amber heard was also top news, as was Messi's transfer to PSG; it's celebrity trivia. Really, without the media circus around the event no-one would even know. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You're making yourself look really silly now with these comparisons. It might be a good idea to go back to editing something you might know about. 31.21.114.36 (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL ah the old "I disagree but can't counter with a coherent argument so you must be stupid" point. I think you find I understand British constitutional matters very well and frequently edit political articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strange then that you claim to understand British constitutional matters very well but then dismiss the head of state as being like Johnny Depp. Anyway, you got it wrong, people on Wikipedia (and the world) clearly care, and the article is top of the homepage where it belongs. 31.21.114.36 (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article is not ready; lead is 100% adulatory. Article is an embarassment. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm now genuinely curious if you've actually read the article. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The article has a POV tag. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, so can we expect your "oppose" to change into a "support"? Flyingfishee (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1. we already posted succession, 2. it's largely a figurehead, 3. what little power he has already transferred with the succession, 4. we would never even consider this for any other monarchy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The coronation is purely for ceremonial purposes, he truly ascented to the throne the moment the Queen died and we already posted it.Μιχαήλ Δεληγιάννης (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I have suggested the tag be pulled at the article Talk page. The article is neutral in my view, and the quality is good. Jusdafax (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Andrew and Gotitbro. This is a rare event. Not posting on a technicality (its similarity to a routine presidential inauguration) when its definitely 'in the news' and the rest of the main page has similar content feels inconsistent with ITN's objective. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That the rest of the main page is taking part in a celebration of something, anything, is the problem for a supposedly "neutral" and worldwide encyclopedia. At least its not the full on orgy of royalism that we saw when the last one died. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only have we covered the ascension, we have to recognize the royal family has no political power anymore. This is literally pomp and not appropriate for us to cover. --M asem (t) 13:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also to add: DYK appears to have a number of coronation-related blurbs ready to go. Per Main Page policies, it is not appropriate to have the same topic covered in different sections of the Main Page; thus, we can let the coronation be covered over at DYK. --M asem (t) 13:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? This isn't that uncommon for the main page. In fact, 3 sections are related to the monarchy today. We've never not run an ITN item for this reason in the past. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's no such policy as it's not just DYK. FA is leading with one of the greatest English kings – Edward I – while FP has the amusingly apposite entry of His Majesty.  These sections have been carefully planned and prepared while ITN is otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's honestly embarrassing really. They've planned ahead and organised and we're being held back by the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first coronation of a British monarch in almost 70 years, and Charles III is the oldest person to be crowned in British history at 73 years old. Furthermore, for anyone comparing this to a presidential inauguration it's not a good comparison as they happen every four years unless a president serves more than one term. This event is also being covered by news internationally. greyzxq  talk 14:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as the first English coronation to occur in 70 years, this is inherently notable and significant. The article has been updated and is of high quality, its significance is not that it is an inauguration but, more than that, it is a unique event, the first of its kind to be filmed and streamed live in this manner, to have a coronation concert celebration, to have women in significant roles and also is the oldest monarch to have been crowned. Happily888 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - it is in the news globally. Shouldn't matter that we posted previous aspects of the same event if this event is equally important/symbolic.  Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The coronation is simply a formality for a ceremonious role. I highly doubt anyone would support a similar news item for ITN if it were say a Saudi or a Japanese King. Maharaja of India (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there would of been at the very least a lengthy nomination had there actually been coverage for the events or they had their own articles for such event. Captain  Galaxy  15:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I had a whole lengthy response typed up and then Wikipedia lost it. Long story short: Although there's depth of coverage from the celebrity angle, we hardly ever post inaugurations or coronations (we did once with Barack Obama, and people even then thought it was a mistake). WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues aside, the significance and impact of these types of events are relatively muted, because they represent the end-stage of a process which by then has become a fait accompli. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * this happens a lot at ITN. A good practice is to quickly copy the text before clicking publish, that was you can quickly paste it next time round if 1st try doesn't work. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been around long enough to know better. I'll do that next time. As an addendum to my previous point, though: It might be easier to get behind the "head of state of multiple realms" argument if the British Empire still retained its former strength and reach, rather than existing as a toenail of what it once was. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. While this may seem redundant, a British monarch hasn't been crowned in nearly 70 years. Ergo, impact may be little, but this is certainly a widely known and covered event. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange-tagged for NPOV issues. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Very much in the news; dedicated whole day coverage in the US for this event even though Charles isn't the monarch. Speaks volumes to how important the media perceives this event to be. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Not anymore, so can we expect your "oppose" to change into a "support"? Flyingfishee (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already to much Anglosphere bias--TheDutchViewer (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think this is a phony argument. ITN bends over backwards to ensure that it filters out stories that are amplified due to systemic bias, while also favoring ones from outside the Anglosphere whenever possible. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Instead of trying to be equally biased towards both sides, it is naturally much better to simply remove the original bias whenever possible. A lesson society in general should learn. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This meets all the criteria for ITN. The neutrality tag was a red herring and unwarranted. This event is in the news as the leading article in multiple countries worldwide. And it is a historic event that only occurs literally once in a generation (sometimes less with a particularly long-lived monarch) - the last coronation was 70 years ago. The next prominent events for UK royalty will be the next succession events, so it is hardly over-exposure. Death, funeral, coronation. Those are the three key events at every succession, and if they garner widespread news coverage (as all three events here did), and there are articles on them, then it is not unreasonable for them to feature on ITN (the strange thing is that this coronation will appear in all the history books, but some participants in ITN seem to want to put their own spin on history). Carcharoth (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "some participants in ITN seem to want to put their own spin on history" That's an incredible lack of good faith. This is about mentioning something on the ITN section of Wikipedia's main page–nobody is changing history or even suggesting that. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  16:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Western bias aside, the event has little to no significance or impact. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  15:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Extremely reluctant oppose per the inauguration precedent. A shame, too; people might not know what the theme with TFA and DYK is all about then. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Obvious world significance re Commonwealth participation, rare event, nice orb &c. Inauguration comparisons redundant as held every four years, relatively low-key. Ericoides (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There is no precedent or correlation between this and a presidential inauguration: that happens every five years, while the last coronation was seventy years ago. It’s a huge story that will be on most front pages. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right. This is more akin to the inaugural ball: pomp and circumstance, but no legal meaning.  All of Charles's legal power (such as it is) became his when his mother's death was announced. Rockphed (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Significant event for the world, a coronation event for one of the world's oldest monarchies that made headlines in many countries. Yxuibs (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Support. This is very newsworthy and the first coronation in 70 years. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 16:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The first coronation of a British Monarch in 70 years. There are other monarchies in the world who have had coronations. Rockphed (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, formality for an event that already happened and was covered in ITN. Morgan695 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, why is this marked as "ready"? Consensus seems pretty strongly divided. Morgan695 (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DISCARD, any !vote based solely on personal opinion does not count when considering consensus. Determining consensus simply by counting the supports and opposes is not allowed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty of editors here have opposed based on reasoning that is not solely their personal opinion. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  19:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Not actually of wide interest in the Commonwealth, much less beyond it. RAN1 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Very strong support – How could this seriously not be newsworthy?--Hildeoc (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As I said above (without a not-vote), this isn't even akin to a presidential inauguration: this is the equivalent of the inaugural ball. An inauguration at least marks the legal change-over between presidents. I think the first 3 opposes speak to the points I want to make better than I can. Rockphed (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral tending to oppose No one doubts the global attention this event has received and that it is one of the most important events of this year. Nor do we doubt the global and historical importance of the English Crown. It’s a historic moment (more for the fact that it is the first coronation of an English monarch that has been seen by millions of people around the world. Including me and I have to say that was so beautiful), but despite the pomposity, it’s a purely symbolic act. We have already done well to add the succession of Charles as King after the death of his mother. I'm open to support this nomination if you achieve to convince me. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy and significant, last happened in 1953. Bruxton (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's high up in the newspaper headlines and on TV in many countries apart from the UK, article is in good shape Josey Wales Parley 18:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It is front page news all over the world and meets the usual criteria. A lot of the opposition here seems to be ideological. Atchom (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - even using the long-standing consensus against posting inaugurations, this is still significant as being the first coronation within the Commonwealth since 1953. Its front page news across the world. Before you ask, I'm not necessarily opposed to (nor in support of) posting the inaugurations of US presidents either. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - TFA, DYK, and TFP all have content related to the monarchy. Not posting this blurb would be incongruous with the rest of the Main Page. Edge3 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (as a republican): this is the coronation of the monarch of 15 countries. The news story is not that Charles III is king, which was true from the moment Elizabeth II died, but that an inordinate number of people are watching or participating in inordinately expensive pomp and circumstance, similar to the recent Platinum Jubilee (posted) or 2018 Royal Wedding (posted). — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's all pomp and no circumstance. 2.101.142.41 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Despite my personal (negative) feelings about this event and monarchy in general, this coronation is a major international news event. Yes, Charles III has been king since the moment Elizabeth II died, but her death was the major news story then. It's now eight months later, and this is the major news story now. Also, as this is the first UK coronation in 70 years, and Wikipedia has only been in existence for a fraction of that time, I'm not sure how much precedent should apply here. Funcrunch (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: A notable event for its rarity, since it is a once in a generation (or even once in a lifetime) event. Presidential inaugurations occur every four years, whereas the last coronation occurred 70 years ago, and there were only four in the 20th century. It is also the first coronation to include contributions from representatives of multiple faiths, and to include content in the Welsh and Gaelic languages. This is Paul (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Official coronation of head of state in multiple countries. Once-in-70 years event in a 1,200-year tradition. Clearly of extraordinary levels of media coverage and attention of a global nature. Naturally of strong general interest to readers. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major global news event with millions of views. A public celebration of a real transfer of power. Thriley (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comparison with US presidential inaugurations is fatuous. They occur every four years. This is the first coronation for the UK and thirteen other countries; and the head of the Church of England, in seventy years. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the coronation is just performative. He was king the moment his mother passed on. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  20:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Striking my oppose !vote to support. I'm now convinced by the above arguments that the parallel to presidential inaugurations are inaccurate. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  20:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Would we post any other coronation? Serious question. --
 * Rockstone Send me a message!  20:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a chance, if the most recent nomination is anything to go by: 2022 Zulu coronation Abcmaxx (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Was that attended by 100 heads of state and watched by 300 million people? Ericoides (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a popularity contest though is it? "My king is better than your king" is the exact imperial mindset we are trying to avoid here. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but the simply fact is this got far more public/media attention. Same reason why we don’t post blurbs for comparatively minor deaths/terrorist attacks/sports events/etc, but I never see a “bias!!!” uproar over those. The Kip (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is the Zulu king a head of state with a significant amount of legal reserve powers over an elected government? --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:805A:7DC0:127C:4AB5 (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Arguably more than the King of Britain has. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, I fully share the arguments of user:Funcrunch above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, it meets notability requirements, is a recent event, it is largely cited, and it is not a stub. No valid policy-based argument has been presented to challenge its inclusion. The fact that this is controversial despite no policy argument against it shows just how out of touch ITN is with the rest of the project and its processes. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Renewal6 (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. For those comparing this event to a presidential inaugoration, this is something that only occurs once in a generation, and hasn't happened for almost 70 years. For the record, I wouldn't object to a presidential inaugoration either. — Voice of Clam (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment About time this was speedily posted now eh? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. It’s time to speedily post.BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is a historic once in a lifetime event which has recieved global news coverage. The coronation deserves to be posted. Golem08 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not once in a lifetime event is it though, plenty of people lived through the previous British coronation and given the king's age we are likely to see another too, not to mention all the other kings and queens all over the globe. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * For many people it will be, simple as that. Golem08 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I'm surprised it hasn't already posted. What more do we need? Class envy doesn't count either. CoatCheck (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Even if the event is mostly ceremonial, it’s undeniably in world news and not just in English-speaking countries (e.g. it is placed prominently on the websites of Bild, Yomiuri Shimbun, and Folha de S.Paulo). The Commonwealth has a population of over 2 billion people, and even the Commonwealth realms (a narrower term, those with the British monarch as head of state) over 100 million. This is an uncommon event, as others have noted. I skimmed the article and didn’t see any glaring issues. The orange NPOV box is gone. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Before the unfortunate soul who gets to decide whether this gets posted or not, let's not forget the uproar after the last time Wikipedia turned into Royalopedia: Talk:Main Page/Archive 205 Abcmaxx (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Was it really an uproar, though? ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  22:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * DYK, FA and POTD are all coronation-related. This is some crazy imperial bootlicking. 5.151.106.0 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't disagree with this interpretation. Wikipedia is UKPedia whenever it involves the British monarchy. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: The comments saying there is too much bias to the UK or western countries are amusing to me. I mean, this is the english language wiki and most of the largest English speaking countries are closely aligned with the UK. Does the Japanese wiki have to deal with this "oh we focus too much on Japan" argument? -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Japan is the only country where Japanese is the predominant language. In terms of population, I'm pretty sure India would be country with the most English speakers, followed by perhaps US and then Nigeria. Pretty sure those countries would definitely not have strong royalist sentiments would they. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yay, arguments over semantics. My comment was about the "western bias" argument in general. Regarding the last part of your argument, so? You could say that about anything. -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the five newspapers mentioned in the second paragraph of Newspapers published in Nigeria feature an article about the coronation on their front pages, although the level of prominence varies (probably least prominent on The Punch, while very noticeable in most of the others). Similar rule holds for The Times of India, Dainik Bhaskar, etc. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, this news item has already been posted on at least 5 of the top 10 language editions of Wikipedia on https://www.wikipedia.org/ (German, French, Russian, Spanish, Italian). Japanese Wikipedia doesn’t seem to have ITN (maybe I missed it). It has been nominated for inclusion on Chinese Wikipedia without any opposition so far. That leaves English, Persian, and Portuguese. I expect that Portuguese Wikipedia will post it eventually. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if anyone is accusing the Russian wiki of having a Western bias? -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that other wikis are posting this item just shows how well our editorial significance standard works around here, in that we don't just post items that show up in the news willy-nilly. After all, we're not a news ticker. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  23:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the takeaway here. Wikipedia has better editorial standards than all other wikis and most major news outlets. Nope, it's not that there are a lot of nitpicky users who oppose based on their own biases (and yes, I've read most of the comments and 90% boil down to "I don't like it" or "it's not a big deal where I am" arguments) and if someone posted it quickly a great many tears would be shed. It's that Wikipedia has better editorial standards than the New York Times. -- 64.136.123.133 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's the biggest problem with ITN's significance standard is that it does allow editors to become armchair editors-in-chief, deciding what is and isn't important. It's one of the few areas on Wikipedia in which WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT are treated as valid arguments since the standard is by definition subjective. I do wonder if a centralized discussion is in order to see if maybe that needs changing. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a significance standard that differs from what the media reports on because WP is not a newspaper, nor is ITN a news ticker. ITN is here to feature high-quality articles that happen to have news coverage, not the reverse of providing links to articles that make up news coverage. To achieve that, we have to avoid the systematic bias of media reporting and instead use our own opinions and past decisions to guide our selection of articles better. M asem (t) 00:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wrong way around: ITN is there to feature news articles about topics that blatantly feature highly prominently in the news cycle and which meet a better minimum standard of up-to-date content and coherence. This topic was obviously going to in the news a mile off, and the 5 other major wikis that have already got it right, as have the other main page sections here, which have rightly ascertained that it an opportune time to promote related content. ITN is just demonstrating that out is slow to react, taking a day to post obviously ITN material, and clearly hampered by a range of WP:BURO-type issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support as per the reasons given above. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Front page news in a good chunk of the world. The inauguration argument is silly imo, inaugurations happen routinely every four years; this, meanwhile, is the first coronation since the last Churchill ministry. The Kip (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the average global lifespan is around 73, so the average person around the globe who was a young child at the time of the last coronation has not lived to see this one. There was plenty speculation that Charles wouldn't either, and at 74 years he's broken the record as the oldest British monarch to ever be crowned (I haven't yet been able to ascertain if there's a global record that's higher). Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Contrary to the arguments above, U.S. presidential inaugurations are commonplace as they happen once every 4 or 8 years like clockwork. A coronation ceremony for England's monarch is not commonplace at all and this is indeed historical and deserves its place on ITN. Probably the first coronation many of us have seen, given that the last one happened 70 years ago. : —  That Coptic Guy ping me! (talk) (contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: An event receiving extremely high levels of international coverage. --Inops (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't envy whomever is stuck deciding if there's consensus to post. I think there's clearly *not* consensus, though. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  23:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * One would have to determine however many supports/opposes are simply “I do/don’t like it” or other non-policy/quality stuff, but by my count there’s about 54 supports to 24 opposes now, so I’m not exactly sure I’d agree with your conclusion, unless the opposes have a far stronger argument. The Kip (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, to be frank, most of them don't, and are based upon either WP:RGW or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Make that 55. The Kip (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, consensus is not determined just by vote. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  00:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual arguments besides pithy rejoinders? I've seen you offer plenty of those throughout this whole nomination process but no actual substantive arguments beyond just "we're not UKpedia". ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  00:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. We don't post inaugurations, we have never posted a coronation, and the entire process has no legal effect. We wouldn't post the coronation of any other monarch, the British are not an exception. Wikipedia is already way too pro-monarchy and biased towards the west. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  00:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * …you do realize you just completely proved his point, right? This entire comment reads like a combination of WP:RGW and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We’ve never posted a coronation because the British monarchy hasn’t had one since before the internet was even a mere concept (making your argument a degree of bad faith), and it’s been well-established by other editors that the comparison to a US inauguration is a poor one (to the point where WaltCip was convinced to flip his vote). The Kip (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a genuine question, has there been a coronation (I'm speaking strictly coronation, not inauguration) in recent history that we could have posted here? Someone earlier talked about Saudi Arabia's King and Japan's emperor who have ascended to their respective titles in recent years, but neither even have an article related to their coronation (and as far as I'm aware, Saudi don't even have an article related to their version of a coronation overall). I'm sorry if I am sounding ignorant and am completely misinformed. But I'm just a bit confused why people bring up about we won't post a coronation because we haven't in the past, but as far as I'm aware we've never had the chance to post a coronation in the past as there were no articles to go alongside them. Captain  Galaxy  01:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Today I learned that trying to avoid systemic UK bias means I'm making an "I don't like it" argument. Got it. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  01:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because posting one front-page news item =/= "systemic UK bias," unless your opinion is that it is, in which case it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * It's now been posted anyways because it has a clear consensus to post, so this is a moot argument. The Kip (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just that. It's the constant bombardment of news from the UK for the past year that we would never do for any other country. That's what makes this a form of systemic bias, and you know it to be true. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the way to counter the bias you seem to think there is is to find stories in the news elsewhere, write quality articles on them and nominate them at ITNC. Mjroots (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Coronation is big news and the article seems to be in adequate shape. Mellk (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted This seems as close to consensus as we'll get here. While I understand there are a range of opinions about the true importance or meaning of the ceremony, it has been adequately demonstrated that this is in the news, of widespread interest, and supported by a quality article. --  tariq abjotu  01:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Should it say United Kingdom or Commonwealth? - Floydian τ ¢ 04:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's done that at all. But that's not what this posting is about. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Would someone like to do the paperwork please? Mjroots (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats It's interesting to look through the Top read 100 articles from yesterday. Charles III heads the list, which is no surprise.  But the first lady was not Camilla but rather Penny Mordaunt who impressed with her sword-wielding and cape.  Overall, over 50 of those 100 articles were connected with the Coronation or the Royal family and so the event dominated readership yesterday.  Note that none of the other topics which ITN was blurbing made it into the Top 100 – even the previous coronation did better.  Finally, a special mention for Jeffrey Hudson who performed well at #11.  I'm not sure how he got into the public eye but he adds a nice Game of Thrones element to the proceedings. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reluctantly unPOINT y post-posting support. The failure to post Biden's inauguration was really the pinnacle of what's wrong with ITN/C and its chronic misunderstanding of what constitutes global significance. That said, hopefully posting this similar event for another great power—one that I do think is ITN-worthy, although far less so than a change in who commands the strongest military on Earth—will be seen, come January 2025, as an illustration of how consensus can change, and not as some special case for the UK. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 08:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I share your opinion here. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  09:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is with a want for a quid pro quo with postings or the need to equate them. Each nom can be decided on its own merits (as this was) and past precedent (none exists here); the inaugration has been distinguished with this in multiple comments above and its precedent [with the last two inaugrations] stands. Let this posting not be considered a precedent/point of argument in future noms. Gotitbro (talk) 11:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Theres a bridge over the Thames I’d like to discuss for sale with you at my user talk. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 11:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chris Strachwitz

 * Support Article is 99 percent, except for one [when?] tag, but that doesn't stop this from going onto ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Long enough, well sourced, updated with death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Samuel T. Durrance

 * Oppose Orange tag + some unsourced statements that need to be fixed. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still orange tagged. Too much footnote-free prose. No edits in the past 5 days. --PFHLai (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: I've expanded/rescued the refs, and tidied it. The citation issues are not chronic and the overall quality is ok: it's not promotional or controversial, and I'm convinced the information is all there between the various Who's Who articles etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I’ve tagged three uncited paragraphs.  Schwede 66  20:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , all uncited paragraphs should be good now! Tails   Wx  20:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article good to go! Tails   Wx  21:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terry Lewis

 * Support. Long enough and mostly sourced. Has been updated with death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Padma Desai

 * Support Ktin, Thenightaway and Santhoshsum1spc1 edits have strengthened article quality and referencing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwinnspeed (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has one (maybe two?) CN tags left. Support Article is now of adequate quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000 - Thanks much. A CN tag had been added for the date of birth. I have added a source for the date of birth. Please have a look at your convenience. Ktin (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ktin, I have now changed my !vote. Nice job. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written and sourced, updated with death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Arsenio Iglesias

 * Support Article is in good shape for ITNRD. Well cited and long enough. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine Alex-h (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) COVID-19

 * Support in principle, but the update is insufficient. This is the closest we're ever going to get to an official end, and the article is of course excellent. However the update is just a single sentence in the body. There's needs to be more than that, explaining what the change in designation means. That should be easy to fix. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 13:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would advocate that we link to PHEIC at least as a secondary target so it's clear what is happening here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meh. There's a single sentence update to the article.  There only needs to be a single sentence update to said article, which means "don't go adding more sentences to beef this up so it qualifies for ITN".  I see no need to post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Change to Support Article is quality, update is large enough, story is being reported in reliable sources. Checks every box.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support well, three years down the line, and here we are. Juxlos (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sure enough, I checked and there haven't been any recent storied about COVID-19 lockdowns in China, which nearly everyone who opposed removing COVID-19 as ongoing from ITN cited as being the key reason that the pandemic was still active. Three years. I think a lot of people, including some scientists, thought the pandemic public health emergency of international concern would be active for much longer than that. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - we've repeatedly asserted in the past that we only declare the pandemic over on ITN when the WHO says so (example). While this is not exactly the "end" of the pandemic, it's signal that the pandemic has receded from its peak and is now largely subliminal at most. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 14:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Opppse The pandemic isn’t over. It’s no longer a public health emergency of international concern.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A mere formality at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - yes, the update to the article is brief. Yes, it's still a pandemic, and will likely be endemic and with us in some form forever.  But this is still a major milestone in an event that has done more to change the world than any single event in the last 30 years (at least). ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this signifies the end of Covid as a major disease, major milestone in world history, although it is just a single sentence, it still is important. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jayron - we need more than a one sentence update to the article, otherwise, this is just a mere formality. --M asem (t) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but there does need to be more than a one line update before this can be posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support after update: Fair enough. It's been three years since this was announced and it's a milestone. However, there should be an expansion instead of one sentence.  Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 15:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support More can be added to the article than one sentence - and it will be, so the quality update concerns should be no more. COVID was also notable for quite a while, so no issues on that front. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 15:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kiril. This isn't the end of the pandemic designation. We should post when it is declared endemic. - Floydian τ ¢ 15:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The update has been expanded in COVID-19_pandemic. Yes, it's still a pandemic, but officially no longer that severe in almost 4 years, so it's notable. Once its pandemic status is downgraded, we can post it too, I think. Brandmeistertalk  15:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The update has been expanded. And while symbolic as a lagging indicator of sorts, it is still an important step in the story that is being widely covered. Would also support posting when it's declared endemic. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support that they said it's no longer a global health emergency, but they did not say the pandemic was over. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The significant update weve been waiting for. DrewieStewie (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. COVID-19 is still being treated as a pandemic by the WHO. However it’s an interesting discussion. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apart from COVID-19, there are two other pandemics currently active - monkeypox and HIV/AIDS. When monkeypox is no longer a pandemic, that likely will not be especially newsworthy; and when HIV/AIDS is no longer a pandemic, that will be extremely newsworthy. So I'm not sure it's worthwhile judging the newsworthiness of this event based on whether it's no longer a pandemic, since the news is reporting on its change of status now regardless of how we define it. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's particularly important that the COVID-19 pandemic is a "pandemic", and that's how almost every single person in the world refers to it (when someone says "the pandemic", it's apparent that they mean "the COVID-19 pandemic"). That's why we should post when the "pandemic" officially ends. On the contrary, very few people were aware that it was a public health emergency of international concern, which sounds too sophisticated to be used in the plain language.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a simple solution to your dilemma: You judge the newsworthiness of something based on whether or not it is in the news. Remember, we aren't making the news here at Wikipedia's ITN section, we're highlighting quality content on items which were already in the news.  News editors and journalists at reliable sources make the decisions about what to write about.  We're only here to post the occasional high-quality article that aligns with the stories that already exist.  Everything else is beyond the purpose of this section.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ... Yeah, that was my point, Jayron. That's what I was saying. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;Kurtis (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We could be years, if not decades, before the pandemic ends. But I don't see how that compares to the end of the unprecedented and longest global health emergency. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but strong oppose to altblurb. WHO did not declare an end to the pandemic. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Degradation in emergency status is newsworthy, when the pandemic is officially declared over (likely not anytime soon) we will post that as well. Gotitbro (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is notable and globally newsworthy. If or when the pandemic is declared over, we can blurb it again. Against the current alt-blurb b/c it is still considered a pandemic.-TenorTwelve (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above, though I strongly oppose the altburb because it is incorrect. DecafPotato (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support This is the most appropriate time we will have to declare the pandemic over on ITN. Flyingfishee (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gabrielle Carey

 * Oppose Article has an orange tag, and has some missing citations. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Terry Vaughn

 * Oppose Article is a stub and has multiple orange tags. Not ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a stub, though indeed that is an orange tag. Curbon7 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rifat Rastoder

 * Support I've just fixed up the article a little bit and added some references. It's not perfect but it might be enough for RD. Flyingfishee (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Article is barely long enough, but there is an orange tag in there. Please fix it! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Merged to existing blurb) 4 May Serbia shootings

 * Conditional support - article is currently stubby, but this is again a pretty uncommon event in Serbia. Hell, given the death count, this might have been posted even if it occurred in the United States. Also, I think some might complain of having two Serbian mass shooting blurbs on, so I wonder about y'all's thoughts on combining the two into a single consolidated blurb (EDIT: I didn't read the last part of the nom comment. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 23:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge with present Serbian shooting (and possibly Pakistan shooting below) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk)
 * Oppose Article is two paragraphs long, and is a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Currently in stub. Fahads1982 Talk02:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article is of sufficient quality now. Extremely rare event for Serbia, and given the high death toll might even be warranted if it occurred in a country where such events are less rare. Oppose combining blurbs; significant story in its own right, and from the current reports unrelated to the previous attack. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and I would also support merge with the other shooting. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge per nom // <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold;">💪BenzoAid💪 🖊️ 08:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge per nom Xx78900 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support merged blurb per nom. Article is in good shape; just a tweak, I would bold "another in" as well as the city name per WP:EGG.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt, replacing the current one. The two Belgrade shootings should be merged. The Parachinar one should not because it's thousands of miles away & unrelated. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt - Good shape, but I'm not sure what problem we're aiming to solve by merging two blurbs for apparently unrelated shootings. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To avoid two separate blurbs for shootings on consecutive days in the same city, which would take up more space on ITN. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, doesn't matter very much to me. The shootings were unconnected with the exception of both having took place in Belgrade, Serbia. I would consider it if the perpetrator committed both acts, but this to me just looks like a solution that needs a problem to solve. The blurb that would most likely roll off with this (the World Chess Championship) happened back in April. Yes, we're just 5 days into May, but it's stale that there's no point in keeping it. Not to mention, I highly doubt we'll ever have a need to do this anyway. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support merge per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose merged blurbs These are two very separate stories and merging the blurbs implies a connection that doesn't exist. --M asem (t) 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge for reasons I stated in the reply to Jim Michael. There's no connection between the two shootings, so they should not be merged. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge again, the stated significance in the last nom is that this sort of thing doesn't happen often here. Now it's happened twice in a few days. If you want to post it, fine. But there is not even a whiff of connection.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is true that these incidents are most likely unrelated beyond that they occurred in the same country. But both are ITN worthy events. The proposal to merge the blurbs is not intended to imply a connection. It's merely a convenient way to post both without taking up a second blurb slot. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge per Masem, undecided on a separate blurb. DecafPotato (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Serbia has a lot of these mass killings compared to most countries - there's already been two bigger ones this century! (which isn't surprising, given Serbia has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world). Nfitz (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * . From the article itself. Curbon7 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that there's been twice as many mass shootings this century as I've mentioned? There can't be too many countries that have more than that - especially in Europe - outside of war! Gosh, it doesn't seem that long since the last one! Nfitz (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The statements and  are mutually exclusive. The latter statement is the correct one. Don't take my word for it, take it from NBC and USA Today and The Guardian and CBC. Curbon7 (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to better elaborate that argument. A total of four mass shootings in the 21st century isn't really more frequent than in other European countries (for instance, there were four mass shootings in Finland this century for which we have articles even though it commonly ranks as one of the safest countries in the world). Of course, you'll always find countries with less or no mass shootings, but it'd be sheer cherry-picking.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I don't think it'd be a mistake to merge with the blurb on the school shooting for conciseness. The fact that they happened in a single country makes them the state authorities treat them jointly. A mistake would be to merge two school shootings in two unrelated countries just because they're school shootings.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support merge we need to specify that while the two mass shootings might have occurred at the same time, they are unrelated. The proposed blurb does specify this. Readers should be smart enough to notice that we say "two separate shootings." Flyingfishee (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Merge - Personally, I support the arguments for merging more than not. The hook should display that these are separate incidents though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support merge per above. Two similar incidents in the span of days, in a country/region where such incidents are rare. The Kip (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurbs merged together.  Sandstein   09:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Pakistan school shooting

 * Oppose As of now, a two-sentence stub. Will need a massive expansion to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two articles about this which need to be merged. The other one is Parachinar school shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've merged them now. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:EVENTCRIT. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 20:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is currently a stub and is not ready for ITN. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is quite poor. And is not ready for ITNRD. Fahads1982 Talk 01:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "ITNRD", or just "RD", refers to recent deaths&mdash;Wikipedia's approach to acknowledging the passing of singular individuals (usually celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile personalities) on the main page. This is a massacre of civilians. Apart from the tragic circumstance of their deaths, no one among them is well-known beyond their own community. This nomination is for a blurb, not an RD listing. Kurtis (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now. Article length is still an issue.  It's getting close, but still needs some expansion, IMHO, to have enough information to be worth directing people to.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not Quite Ready per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Petr Klíma

 * Oppose Almost entirely unreferenced. Will need to be cleaned up and fully sourced to be ready for the main page.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is quite poor + orange tagged. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added a few references to the "Early career and defection" section: two books, and one LA Times article from 1985. Each one is a named reference, so if I don't come back to finish adding the refs to every claim that they can verify, I encourage anyone here to check out each source and add them to the article in my stead. Kurtis (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 10 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more footnotes & REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) It's time for a re-review. --PFHLai (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good now. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Linda Lewis

 * Support I've patched up the one unsourced album in the discography section, so this article should be ready for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks solid. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Manipur violence

 * Support The event is certainly a significant escalation in ethnic tensions in the northeast. Article appears to be well-cited and is of a sufficient length at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - as per Curbon7 Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Started a move discussion on the article title, and in the same vein added an altered altblurb that sounds a little better. "Ongoing" may not be necessary, but "unrest" is a better word to use than "violence" here. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems to be a significant event, at least in India. Re above, considering that it seems to be between two ethnic/tribal groups instead of between it and the government, "violence" seems appropriate. Indian media used it, too. Juxlos (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Curbon7. Schwinnspeed (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, Topic is ITN worthy and the article seems to be well cited and is of a sufficient length. Prodrummer619 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per Curbon7 and Juxlos. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support can we add what the cause of the violence is? Otherwise it just suggests an element of randomness. Added altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well cited. Fahads1982 Talk 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 per above. Consensus seems overwhelming, so marking as Ready. The Kip (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   09:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dean Corren

 * Support seems to be good enough for main page. Weird photo, but is what it is. Juxlos (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is of sufficiency for ITNRD. Oh, and by the way, I don't really think that that is a 'weird photo', but whatevs. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Nikica Valentić

 * Oppose Article is a stub, and has a CN tag. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Razie Jachya

 * Support Article quality is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Long enough, sourced, and updated with death. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lance Blanks

 * Not yet ready The "NBA career" section, which is the most important part of this article, is almost non-existant. Curbon7 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Curbon7: Expanded his playing career a bit. —Bagumba (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for our purposes, considering his career was "undistinguished". Rest of the article also looks good, well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Taufik

 * Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982 Talk
 * Support Article is well cited with good enough quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work Reads like it was written by a non-English speaker and has some tense issues too. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There was one "is" that needed to be changed to "was", and I took care of that. Otherwise, it reads like idiomatic English to me.  Don't see any indication that there are any problems like those noted above.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Needs decision) 2023 French pension reform unrest

 * 2023 French pension reform unrest hasn't received an update in nearly three weeks, so that precludes any sort of nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not over by any means though (see this, as an example). Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Great to see that the protests are not over, but the article still needs to be updated. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly this is continuing with the violence escalating. A group of hard-core leftists recently declared their intent to kill policemen and successfully managed to set several on fire with petrol bombs. Unfortunately, the lack of meaningful updates precludes this being posted for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Someone else has already added a paragraph about the May 1 protests. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally i'm definitely opposing for now since this article has not been updated accordingly. Even the new May 1 update is only an update from three days ago while the update before that was April 14, a whole 26 days ago. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose ongoing Lack of regular, considerable updates.  Spencer T• C 03:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support once updated with recent events, per previous comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support IIRC, this had been in the ongoing section, but was removed because the article text was not keeping up with events. It looks like that is starting to be remedied.  If we want to keep this in ongoing, someone needs to take responsibility to make sure the article stays up to date.  Things can only be added to ongoing if we have regularly updated articles about them.  Demonstrate a commitment to doing that if you want the support to post this in ongoing.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Change to full support. Article is much improved, and is being updated.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Put me in, coach. I've added events on May 1, 2, and 3. I'll continue updating once the sources report new information! Tails   Wx  14:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Add me too. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 23:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per @Jayron32 and @Abcmaxx. I plan o working with @Tails Wx and others to updating the article. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 23:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support given the updates. Don't think it ever needed to be removed on a factual basis, but had to be because of the lack of updates. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Protests in Paris - c’est toujours la même. There always seems to be something up on May Day - which was days ago now. I've seen barely a mention of this on the news in weeks. It needs to ramp up seriously, or have a wide-spread full strike I think, to be postable. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Remains notable and is being well updated again. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is ongoing news & is receiving substantial updates. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Kremlin drone strike

 * Wait - still a lot of unknowns. Definitely blurb if it was of Ukrainian extraction, but I kind of doubt it. Optically, looking at the CCTV video, it looks to staged for me. Seems a little convenient that they would be downed right over the damn Kremlin of all places instead of, I dunno, somewhere in the Russian countryside, or even elsewhere in the city. Seems way too optically convenient to have it be shot down over Putin's house of power. Additionally, assuming this is true, this would basically be Russia admitting that their air defense systems are so weak that a country like Ukraine could fly drones 300 mi into their border unhindered. All this seems kind of staged, but who knows? We've seen that Russia's military capabilities in this conflict far underperform what everyone expected prior to February 24, 2022, and it would make sense that there would be top-notch air defense systems or protocol in and around the Kremlin of all places. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 16:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * covered by ongoing regardless. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose as covered by ongoing in case that wasnt clear. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait - As the creator of the article, I'm questioning if this was real. The attack came on the news all of a sudden and Moscow at that time was still in the afternoon. Also, I agree with Knightoftheswords281 that if this was real, a Ukrainian drone actually made it all the way to Moscow without being shot down. This will expose the weakness of the Russian air defense. Sort of reminds me of Mathias Rust's flight to the Red Square in 1987. Layah50♪  (  話して～!  ) 17:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for secondary confirmation, and it better be solid coverage if we're to believe Russia's claims of Ukrainian perfidy. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose article needs some expansion. There's not much there now besides a rudimentary statement saying that two drones were shot down, and then some quotes from the Russian government.  We need more article to post.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support, the blurb covers what is known, it's sufficient. Article is good, even if short. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have much more information than the blurb. What's the point of directing people to read it?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Because a little more is still more, and it's bound to get updated if/ when something develops. --Ouro (blah blah) 00:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The news here is there is no news. Even if not covered by ongoing, all that happened was two drones were shot down. Whether military or not, they did nothing but get shot down themselves. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose nobody got hurt, nothing major occured as a result, and I seriously doubt a Ukrainian Drone could fly for such long distance. oh, and they say two drones were shot down, so they are saying that two drones somehow managed to get through the Russian SAM Sites, go almost 500 kilometers uninterrupted, and, at complete random, explode just before it hits the Kremlin, and 6 days before the Victory Day Parade? Who would attack now of all the possible time? when the Kremlin is closed and Putin is in some bunker away from harm. seems suspicious. and even if it is real, so what? again, nobody was harmed, and nothing major came out of this. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing concrete to say at the moment. Nigej (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing. If it struck the Kremlin, even if no one was hurt, then it would've been postable, but alas. Curbon7 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The one time where saying "alas" about an averted death (or near-death) is unlikely to raise any eyebrows, except maybe in amusement. 😏 Kurtis (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. No deaths or injuries. Not even clear what actually happened with lots of speculation out there but few hard facts. The only real sources are the Russian government and news outlets (apologies for repeating myself). Obviously, those are unreliable. Will reconsider if the Russians attempt to use this as a pretext for something extreme. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending significant updates as to what happened. If it turns out that this was a Ukrainian attempt at assassinating Vladimir Putin, or something of that magnitude, then I'd support a blurb. Kurtis (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tori Bowie

 * Oppose on Quality. Article is generally in good shape, but could use additional sources. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been adding some references to the "Early life and college career" section. In particular, I'm using the Southern Miss athletics roster as a source to verify the athletic records attributed to her. Only problem is that they often use imperial measurements, whereas her article is predominantly metric. Is this discrepancy permissible, even if the distances recorded are almost exactly the same? Kurtis (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d recommend using Template:Convert. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added citations to results for most of the performances in her high school and college career. There are a few remaining citation tags for claims about her college PRs, which may be verifiable but which I don't expect to get around to finding.--Opus 113 (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed one so far unverifiable claim, and now everything is sourced, so this should be good to go. Fram (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support thanks to some editors here, this article should be good to go for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait The article offers no explanation for her untimely death and so is lacking. Presumably more details will emerge when the death is certified. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't require "cause of death", if it is unknown or unreported, to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNCRIT indicates that a substantial update is required and we're not there yet. When a death is controversial then we have a particular need for a good update.  For example, I started an article about Asia Abdelmajid who died in Sudan recently.  Sources seem to vary in describing the manner of her death – some talk of a bullet while others say it was shrapnel from a shell.  As we're an encyclopedia, we should wait upon clear and reliable sources rather than rushing in haste. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no comparison in this article and Asia Abdelmajid's, other than they recently died. Bowie's "substantial update" is the wellness check and being found dead. The cause is not necessary. I would post this RD now, but I think the oldest one needs a bit more time up first. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a substantial update by the standards of WP:ITNCRIT. Sources make it clear that there's more details to come, "The cause and manner of death are pending, Orange County Chief Medical Examiner Joshua Stephany said."  We should therefore wait on them. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Fixed up the last two cn tags, everything else looks good to go. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Not a fan of the one-sentence paragraphs in the "Professional career", but this isn't that big a deal. Curbon7 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Manobala

 * Support One of the top read articles yesterday, getting even more views than Gordon Lightfoot. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose (1) Filmography is unsourced (2) All of leading para after first sentence is unsourced (3) As regards prose, once you ignore the massive unsourced table, the article is a stub. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub w/ a massive unsourced table - and thus not of able quality for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 12:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Four complete sentences does not an article make. Needs a massive expansion to be main page ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Guys updated it and I hope the article is now worth to post in the main front page. 2402:4000:2081:332A:D13F:BDE6:8E7F:8E4A (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is much better, but the filmography is still completely unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Filmography needs sourcing, please. --PFHLai (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Belgrade school shooting

 * Support in principle. The article is minimally sufficient for posting, but it would benefit from further expansion as the story unfolds.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - ah so you were the one who caused that edit conflict. Anyway, to copy from my nom comment when I was attempting to nominate this, It's received plenty of coverage and has a high casualty count. For those who will make comparisons to the US, yes I think we should have posted more of those as well, but you also ought to admit that this is a lot rarer in Serbia. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 13:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ah so you were the one who caused that edit conflict Beg your pardon? I was just nominating this story and was unaware that you would also be doing so. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was also attempting to nominate this story, but you beat me to it while I was editing, hence the edit conflict. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 13:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support per Kiril. Article could stand to be expanded.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Slight modification. Article quality is much improved in the past several hours.  Full support, no notes.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Highly unusual mass shooting in Europe. Article quality is adequate, though as per above comments, I would like to see a little expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support on the basis of being both unusual and the article quality, though some expansion would be great. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree there is sometimes an argument for "significant when in happens here, insignificant when it happens there," but that largely is a matter of circumstance, not geograpy. A train derailment in the UK is different than one in Bangladesh. School shootings are not insignificant in the US just because they are common here, but because there is nothing really differentiating one from the next. The articles could be a form with blanks to fill in: weapon, body count, politician comments. You could have a drop-down box with one of the four motives. The argument for continuing to post under the exact same circumstances just because it happened somewhere else seems illogical to me. Are we going to institute quotas for each country? Differentiate for motive or weapon? I think if there is something different to say, then maybe we post. I don't see that here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the primary reason for this being more significant than the school shootings in the US is not the rarity but rather the reactions from the state authorities. I can't remember when was the last school shooting in the US that resulted in a three-day national morning, a closure of all schools in a million city and extraordinary meetings of high-rank office-holders.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support — Unusual shooting. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking ready Thank you everyone for working on the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah, let's pump the breaks here. The nom hasn't even been up for 4 hours. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Despite having a recent discussion on this matter, we haven’t agreed on setting any minimum time before posting yet.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. If it's ready, it's ready. No need to enforce instruction creep. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, look, by all means post it, I just think there may be some post-posting pushback as may happen on topics such as this one. I have no stake in this save avoiding unneeded conflict. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * support - should be posted if it happened in the US too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;Serbia is not America. These kinds of mass shootings are not commonplace over there, especially not a young teenager shooting up an elementary school. Kurtis (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 18:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support It's not everyday an education minister who is old enough to have seen war in their country describes something as one of the country's darkest days. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) African floods

 * The article is literally one sentence - there's no way we can assess that. Write at least a start-quality article then we can consider. This nomination is premature and a waste of our time without an article to consider. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article has been improved enough to be posted and this event certainly seems notable enough.
 * Aure entuluva (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I stated that the article needs serious expansion in my nomination comment. There is no reason to oppose and dismiss this as a waste of our time when the purpose of supporting at least in principle is based upon news coverage. Quality is critical, but that is not a reason to moan and whine about people nominating a story with a terrible article, especially when one of the core facets of ITN is working to improve the articles of newsworthy stories to main-page status. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 13:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think a topic is worthy of posting here but the article is not then it is a waste of time to nominate it here instead of improving it to get it up to the needed standard. Otherwise youre just asking other people to improve the article by nominating, and that isnt the point of nominating. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since when did articles have to be up to posting quality to be nominated? A key purpose of bringing a story to ITN is improving articles and I've never heard otherwise until now. There are countless stories where people state that they support in principle, strike out oppose votes if an articles been improved, or state in nom comments that the article has to be improved. There is no precedent for not allowing stories to be nominated based on quality, nor did I say that I'm asking other people have to improve the article. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 14:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did you come up with thats a key purpose? This is the page to nominate articles for posting on the main page. If the article cannot be posted on the mainpage then that is pointless. Idk if its the wanting to collect nomination credits or what, but this is still supposedly an encyclopedia and not a game of who got to ITNC first the most times. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe key point may be a slight overstatement, but that is still a de facto integral facet of ITN. Most RDs are in not the best shape when their nominated, then we edit and put them together to make them main-page ready. Same thing also goes for blurb if they need fixing as well. Which brings me to my central point again; when was it not okay to nominate - not post, nominate stories for ITN if their subject articles weren't in main page shape? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats probably a meta question best left for a talk page, either this one's, yours, or mine. And since its off-topic here I think this sidebar should be collapsed so as not to distract from the nom and the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see above and WP:ITNCRIT. The first step in both cases is to write an article or update an existing one, before submitting a nomination on ITN/C. Once a nomination has been made, commenters often raise areas where the article needs more work, but the mere existence of a non-stub article is a prerequisite for those discussions to even begin. There's no point in nominating an article that is just one sentence. Write an article first, then nominate, then discuss whether further improvements are needed. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Except nowhere does in the linked statements does it state that nominated articles are to be of non-stub quality; only for posting. I think I understand where you're getting at, in that you're imagining these articles being on the main page in their current state. In theory, it makes sense to dismiss an article based on quality under these lenses. However, in practice, that doesn't work on ITN since in almost every case (including ironically enough this very article), said article is improved since the reason they were stubs was because they're documenting recent events and as such are recently created articles. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 15:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN's key purposr is to showcase high quality articles that happen to be in the news. Thus we expect that when nominated, "high quality" us within reach and can be improved with a bit of help. A one sentence article is nowhere close to that...and even violates several aspects of NOT and NEVENT. M asem (t) 14:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the vague claim that just because a recently created article is a stub, it does not violate WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOT, considering the work the article has received since, it's clear that high quality was indeed in reach. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support. We now have an actual article, which is pretty basic but does reach our minimum requirements. While floods are common, >100 deaths is not. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Needs work This needs to be expanded. And as of this writing, this topic has been moved to the draft space and is not even an article. Don't get me wrong though, I would have supported this nomination in principle because of the high death toll; however, the prose for this article/draft is still insufficient. Vida0007 (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted, and it doesn't appear to have been of enough quality when it was around. I suggest speedy close. Oppose Article quality is not up to par for ITN Main Page standards. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It was deleted as it was moved to draft space to be expanded, and has since been expanded and moved back. Almost not a stub but still a stub though. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a bit short imo, wouldnt qualify for DYK for example at less than 3k readable prose and 365 words. With a bit more expansion support, but not quite yet imo. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because the article is good enough & the death toll makes it important enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, based on state of article. Needs some more expansion to be ready for prime time, IMHO.  Taking out text not related to the event itself (like background and reactions) we have very little information.  We need more about the actual event we're reporting on.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality has improved, it's ready for the main page now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose on Quality. Article is short but I believe long enough and impactful enough to post. However, the article mostly is sources from a single single source and death totals are not synchronized. I would support if these things could be resolved. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is not a stub, it has 2292 bytes of text. That's well above DYK minimum. It's cited too, and the event is highly impactful. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Quality is now sufficient, and if this happened in the West would already have been posted. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your open-ended accusations of bad faith are growing wearisome and needs to stop. Insinuating that people who don't do what you want are bigots is rude, incivil, and frankly needs to stop yesterday.  Please don't do that again.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging the existence of systematic bias is necessary, and is not an accusation of bad faith or otherwise rude and uncivil. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment article has been merged into the 2023 East Africa floods. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And now the article is about the entirety of Africa. Which kind of gets rid of the ITN part. Wooooooops. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the article wasn't very long, but why the hasty merge into an article which, in spite of covering more events, is also quite barren? Feels like a mistake. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This is nearing on a trainwreck. Too many pagemoves, and the scope of the article has changed three times. Curbon7 (talk) 04:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * lets not forget the merger between the original nomination's article and this new one. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Anousa Luangsuphom

 * Support Article looks good to me. Fahads1982 Talk

RD: Bernard Lapasset

 * Oppose on article quality, which is not up to MP par. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tony Staley

 * Prose on the subject's career is thin and needs footnotes. Please expand it and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Orange tag found in article, which means that this is not ITNRD ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 21:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arun Manilal Gandhi

 * Oppose Article has a lot of sourcing work to be done - CN tags are everywhere to be found. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * At least 7 {cn} tags can be found in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Achmad Sujudi

 * Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982 Talk
 * Comment Is there anything that can be added regarding things he may have done during his ministerial tenure? Curbon7 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not much. All I could find was normative statements. 1999-2004 was a political turmoil era for Indonesia, so not much could be done. I'll try to do it later. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is well-cited and mostly holistic. Sometimes online sources just don't exist, c'est la vie. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles Engola

 * Support Article is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Background section needs more citations. Career section could use more info on what he did while a cabinet minister (apart from holding the titles).--PFHLai (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A few cn tags, but not enough to oppose. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 01:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Valentin Yudashkin

 * Oppose Article is currently a stub. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A stub with only 144 words of prose is too short. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 Writers Guild of America strike

 * Support per nom. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  09:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are lots of strikes going on around the world. I don't see any reason why this one should get a blurb when all the others didn't. Neither the nomination nor the article demonstrates any unusual significance. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Article quality is currently not yet at the level where it's a good one to feature on the frontpage. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Compared to labor strikes in France and elsewhere, this is nowhere close to having any type of major impact outside the delay of some upcoming shows and films. --M asem (t) 12:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose for now on quality grounds. The article is light on prose, if it were expanded some more, I would fully support this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Depth: Decent coverage over multiple news sources, mostly U.S. based. ... Impact: May prevent current and future American television shows from airing such as the Jimmy Kimmel Show. ... Consequences: Certainly unpleasant for the writers, but likely temporary as a settlement will eventually be reached as with previous strikes. ... Encyclopedic: Appears to merit an individual article. ... With all that being said, the lack of long-term consequences for such an event, other than mildly inconveniencing television viewers, makes this an unlikely ITN candidate. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support per nomination.
 * Impact:significant.
 * "Decent coverage over multiple news sources, mostly U.S. based"
 * only some of sources outside of US
 * https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/may/01/hollywood-writers-studios-hold-talks-strike-deadline-looms
 * https://news.sky.com/story/writers-guild-of-america-votes-to-strike-after-talks-with-hollywood-studios-fail-12871072
 * https://www.dw.com/en/hollywood-writers-to-go-on-strike-over-pay/a-65488752
 * https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-states/article/2023/05/02/thousands-of-hollywood-writers-to-strike-over-pay-and-work-conditions_6025089_133.html
 * https://www.marca.com/en/lifestyle/us-news/2023/05/02/64509e75268e3e7e4c8b458c.html Kirill C1 (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * more
 * https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/2/hollywood-writers-go-on-strike-here-is-what-to-know
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65447046
 * https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/hollywood/hollywood-writers-slamming-gig-economy-to-go-on-strike-8586645/ Kirill C1 (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article quality is weak, and impact is limited to mainly talk shows at the moment. If this drags on, it may warrant inclusion. eg. Writers Guild strike enters nth week, causing major delays for scheduled productions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Ignoring the article which is practically a stub. I'm not exactly seeing the major impact of this strike yet. Maybe if there's a major impact in american television then I might support. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per both Masem and WaltCip ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Modest Genius and Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close so…? Second nomination about a strike in the USA. It seems that Americans have just discovered strikes, welcome! Read the news from other countries, please. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * America's no stranger to big strikes. The PATCO August 1981 strike was one of the most famous of its time. So was the 1952 steel strike which effectively saw the federal government use high-octane trust-busting tactics. Of course, this particular strike isn't anywhere close to the notability of those two major events, much less others in other countries. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can you make your point without being needlessly condensending to well-intentioned nominators, you know. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alsor, you can express your thoughts, but can you please stop WP:BITING the newcomers? - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 18:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * let's not be so quick to take offense or invoke rules so easily. And Vida0007 isn't such a new editor around here either. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support per @Кирилл С1. I don't think people really understand the gravity of the situation. Remember how intrinsically linked the film/TV industry is with LA. The last time this strike occurred in 2007, it costed the city of LA several billion dollars. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 18:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How many cities are there in the world? _-_Alsor (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the article on cities most integrated with the global economy, nine of higher importance than LA. DecafPotato (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does that mean a free bar for everything? Not sure this is how Wikipedia works. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not, and I did not claim it did. In fact, I probably oppose this getting posted. But I was pointing out the problems in the rebuttal of "there are a lot of cities", when, in fact, LA is one of the largest. DecafPotato (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose — I would suggest ongoing if this continues and has a real impact. Until then, not suitable for ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now This hasn't had a big enough effect on Hollywood yet. If it lasts long enough, it could be posted to ongoing. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but the blurb should be more clear. This strike will have a big impact on TV shows and movies. Late-night shows are already canceling new episodes until further notice. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait I say wait to see if it goes a little longer. I wouldn't mind this going on Ongoing if it gets to that point, but if it's major to the point that several shows are delayed, let's say 2-3 episodes off schedule, then I think we can consider blurbing or slapping it on Ongoing. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Article quality is low as many have already mentioned. Kaushik C 20:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - For a single union in one country - that's not even essential? Given the number of big strikes that haven't ever been nominated, this is trivial. The article doesn't even indicate how many are on strike - but surely it pales to other North American strikes - such as the over 100,000 that were on strike until April 30th when the entire [|Canadian civil service went on strike]! And that's a MUCH better article. I'm surprised the topic is even notable enough for it's own Wikedia Page! I'd be tempted to merge it to Writers Guild of America West. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support I don't know if the 2007 strike was posted, but over a decade later I feel like it should have been. I don't think it's quite comparable yet, but otherwise the same. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Kirill C1. The strike is notable and in the news, and doesn't happen real often in the entertainment biz. Jusdafax (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Happens roughly every 5 years, and the last WGA strike was in 2008. Definitely not a rare event. M asem (t) 00:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "rare," that's your rewording of my "doesn't happen real often," as in this is the second time a WGA strike has been called since Wikipedia was founded. I stand by my assertion. Jusdafax (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In terms of size, the Guild will be far from the largest strike even this month (the Canada Revenue Agency is still on strike, and another portion of the Public Service Alliance of Canada representing 120,000 people just ended its strike on Monday). There will likely be delays for films and television series, but delays are common with any labour action. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The impact of this strike is not clear as it has just begun. The prudent thing would be to wait for any sizable/significant event to occur from this than post it now. AFL-CIO has also posted a statement but reading that suggests it also is not strongly worded with the strike's notability being left unclear. Gotitbro (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose We rarely do labor actions. But if we are inclined to go down that road there are far more significant one's going on in Europe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good point. The one strike that jumps out in my mind as being significant in the USA was in 1981 with the air traffic controllers (how does this not even have it's own article - Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968). Maybe an extended automaker strike that breaks international supply chains - must have been one of those surely. But strikes are very common - and surely this one is pretty minor compared to many (if not most). If we start posting minor strikes in only one country (or part of one country - it's not clear to me if the East is on strike, or just the West) - we'll be posting several a day, with 200 countries having only 3 or 4 a year - let's be honest, France will get 100 themselves. Nfitz (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose without prejudice against nominating for ongoing again in the future should something sizable or significant happen. Per WaltCip. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "WGA Strike Explained: The Issues, The Stakes, Movies & TV Shows Affected — And How Long The 2023 Work Stoppage Might Last"
 * https://deadline.com/feature/hollywood-writers-strike-wga-explained-1235341146/
 * "It’s Not Just The WGA
 * A number of unions have contracts with the AMPTP expiring in the next few weeks. Generally, the guild that negotiates first sets the tone for the subsequent negotiations." Kirill C1 (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD/Blurb: Khader Adnan

 * Support Looks good to me. Fahads1982 Talk 05:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Support blurb as discussed below. 〜 Festucalex  •  talk  08:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb - very widely covered (NYTimes, Guardian, BBC, AP and so on, and leading front page news in Israel and the Arab world eg Haaretz, al-Jazeera), something like Palestinian Khader Adnan dies in an Israeli jail after an 86 day hunger strike. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This nomination is covered under WP:A/I/PIA and requires extended-confirmed status to comment on. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 09:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Potentially escalate to main news, this is more than just a simple RD. Article looks nice. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This can be considered for a blurb as the death is unusual and one of the main points of discussion surrounding this person. Gotitbro (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, but oppose blurb per the orange tag in the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , the tags have been resolved. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So is there a reason to oppose the blurb then? Its already led to wider ramifications, with rockets launched from Gaza and Israeli rocket and tank fire on Gaza, and the countrys prison service put on high alert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I struggle to see how this guy is notable, or how his death is notable enough for a blurb. RD should be fine, although we don't do picture RD's here. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean his death led to violent clashes in the West Bank (source), Gaza (sourced above), and has the United Nations calling for an investigation (source). Idk what youre looking for notability, but I could probably write an article on his death right now if he didnt already have a biography. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Nableezy: Then do it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No I meant if there wasnt already a biography (establishing the guy as being notable anyway), but as there is Im just editing that biography. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, this guy is only notable for his death, which is iffy because the UN states that 25,000 people die of starvation each day, but if we really want to blurb something, we should blurb the actual actions and not the guy who died. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, he was notable well before his death, and how many of those 25k a day do it voluntarily? Amnesty International has been talking about him for over a decade. That you dont know who he is does not mean the rest of the world does not. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * He has been hunger striking for a decade and was notable enough in 2012 for a famous political cartoonist to turn him into a cartoon for hunger striking in defiance of administrative detention. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fakescientist8000, did you read the entry? There’s widespread coverage for many years, he’s very obviously notable. I am really confused by your comments. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Violent clashes frequently happen in Gaza & the West Bank. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major Figure in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, widely covered. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) non-ec editor comment struck
 * "Major Figure in the Israel-Palestinian Conflict"
 * It's a stretch. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Given the circumstances of his death, this should be blurbed instead. Nevertheless, whether this would be blurbed or just be included in the RD section, the target article looks good, as the issues have been addressed now. Vida0007 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. Appreciate all who have improved the entry. I just tweaked the proposed blurb to reflect sources that count the hunger strike as 87 days. It does seem to be a wider news item, so I support the blurb. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuine question,but why are you voting on your own nomination? Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn’t propose the blurb. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like you did. Just as a general rule though, you are assumed to be a "Support" vote by virtue of being the nominator. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry are you saying I don’t know whether I was the blurb proposer? Innisfree987 (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you're listed as having "Updated and nominated" the item. Whether or not you wrote a blurb really isn't relevant. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This really isnt relevant to the discussion, but they nominated for RD, I nominated for blurb and added one. They are supporting a blurb that they did not nominate. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. In that case my bad. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * oppose blurb
 * We didn't blurb Angela Lanesbury, Harry Belafonte, Ray Liotta, author of Gaia Theory. Why should we blurb a guy whom no one knew about a year ago? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, we probably won't be blurbing Jerry Springer. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think only a very specific age bracket of people know any of those people either, and for most people, there is nothing particularly notable about the nature of their deaths in of themselves. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With that logic: I'm not sure any age bracket knows about this man, and there is nothing notable about this man's death either. Pass. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is very much something notable about a three-month hunger strike of someone detained without charge, just so long as you are a person with some sort of vested interest in human rights, the rule of law, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Several former MPs were killed.
 * Charles Engola,
 * Atiq Ahmed. Why they weren't blurbed? Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * They probably should have been blurbed, but doing something wrong once doesn't mean continue to do it wrong forever and for everything. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, though I am still undecided on a blurb. - Knightoftheswords281  (Talk · Contribs) 18:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite simply put, because people have much stronger opinions/narratives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than they do on Ugandan or Indian poltics. The Kip (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Or because Engola wasnt nominated for a blurb and barely discussed, and neither of the deaths had the UN remarking on them or being covered as widely as this? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The UN argument, sure, but the Ahmed death received pretty decent coverage even outside of India; perhaps we should also consider the fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict is much more politically charged in western media than Indian politics in general, which reflects a degree of bias on our own part. The Kip (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And also on Deadline, Hollywood website. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Engola's death is notable, but I'm not sure if he's notable enough for a blurb. However, I'm also not sure if Adnan's notable enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Atiq Ahmed was a gangster who was shot. While it received coverage in international press because it was filmed, it was in no way significant outside of a small part of India. Curbon7 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ray Liotta was in Wild Hogs. Give the man due respect. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb: Strong international news story, strong human rights story, highly unusual death. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - A double whammy of an important figure combined with a death that, by virtue of being a hunger strike in a highly charged political conflict, is very much the main story. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After reading his page, it does not seem that he was an important figure in the political conflict. Kaushik C 21:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaushikchemburkar (talk • contribs)   This user is not extended-confirmed, !vote struck.
 * Support blurb per above. Mount Patagonia  (talk • contributions) 18:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb pretty horribly treated, but one of unfortunately too many victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doesn't meet bar as a result, imo; if you want the "notable way of death" argument, not blurbing Atiq Ahmed doesn't help that case. The Kip (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD per The Kip. Part of a bigger conflict and I can’t see that he was one of the most notable Palestinian figures. Article looks great for RD and is ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont get it tbh, somebody starving themselves to death in an act of nonviolent resistance is a notable act. It isnt that some person died that is being nominated here, it is how and why. And that is, from the extremely wide and extremely in-depth coverage across the globe, a highly notable act. You have full length, in depth stories about this, not just basic obituaries, not just reprints of wire services. Yes, this is part of a bigger conflict. Its also something that rarely happens across the world, conflict or no conflict. Would Bobby Sands dying been shot down as being part of a wider conflict? Really? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Most major deaths during the Russo-Ukrainian War (such as the bombings in Moscow and St. Petersburg, or the many dead in Dnipro) have been shot down here as being simply part of a wider conflict, even with the former two having weaker claims to such (albeit still justified ones). If those two, which are ambiguously related to the conflict as a whole, are considered too closely covered by ongoing items/wider actions to be included, why should we blurb a political prisoner who was blatantly locked away as the result of, y'know, his relation to an ongoing conflict?
 * And yes, I'm not sure Bobby Sands would've been posted for the same reason, albeit he was a decent degree more notable than the subject here considering Sands was technically a sitting MP at the time of his death. The Kip (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that the userbox on your user page doesn't exactly make you a neutral observer here, so I stand to question whether you want this posted on actual notability or this is instead a grand WP:SOAP gesture. The Kip (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note what you like, but you appear to have as much trouble comprehending the userbox as you do assuming good faith. The blurbing is about somebody dying from a hunger strike, something that news sources across the world are treating as a noteworthy act. The Russo-Ukrainian War events are shot down because, ahem, the Russo-Ukrainian War is listed in ongoing. I dont see a listing for any of the following: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian prisoners in Israel, Hunger strikes among Palestinian prisoners in Israel. But I guess my userbox makes me as non-neutral as sources giving this attention like CNN, NYTimes (hey they ran a story about hunger strikes too), Washington Post, the Guardian, and on and on. Guess they all are non-neutral observers too? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for not entirely believing the truthfulness of motivation on this extremely contentious topic for a user with an "unofficially" pro-Hezbollah userbox on their page, especially when that user doesn't appear to have supported similar non-topic cases in recent memory. Considering Alsor has a pro-Zionist infobox on his userpage, I'm not entirely convinced his oppose is based in neutrality either.
 * I'll admit I myself didn't support the Ahmed nom until I read a bit more into the case, but by that point consensus had moved against blurbing. It probably should've. The Kip (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If youd like to discuss anything besides whether or not Khader Adnan should be blurbed in ITN please do it somewhere else. My userbox you can discuss on my user talk. But you not understanding the userbox has nothing to do with this nomination. But we dont censor policy compliant arguments because we dislike somebody's politics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, the point is effectively that nothing in this conflict is truly unique, unprecedented, or notable enough for ITN anymore barring a truly massive flareup (i.e. a third intifada or a full-scale Israeli invasion), a truly major death (i.e. Abbas, Netanyahu, etc), or a peace deal that's actually agreeable to all involved. Another Israeli soldier gets a rock thrown at them, another Palestinian civilian is arrested and/or murdered as a result. The conflict goes on, the protests go on, the arrests go on, and in this respect I don't see anything excessively notable about Adnan besides the means of his death. It's not even the first time he conducted a hunger strike, this one just unfortunately resulted in his adding to the Israeli occupation's death toll. The Kip (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No it wasnt his first hunger strike. It was however the first one he died from. Also the first one any Palestinian has died from in 31 years. This isnt a normal thing. It isnt about who died. It is about how and why, a how and why that is, again, treated as significant in the sources. Most things we post are not unprecedented. We have a whole list of them that are highly precedented. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Before gratuitously questioning my neutrality (I suppose that as non-mechanical rational beings we have an inevitably subjective and reflective side), please provide evidence and precedent for expressing a biased opinion on a nomination related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Judge what I said, not what I think. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb the Israel-Palestine issue is always so volatile and extreme historically, we'd really need someone way more important to die (eg. government head etc.) to merit a blurb. Activists in this conflict die often, and protests / unrest on either side happens so often. This does not seem so incredible or unusual to me to deserve a whole blurb. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD though - article looks good to me QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC) non-ec editor comment struck


 * Support blurb Strong international news story, and, AFAIK, it is more than 30 years since last time a Palestinian died from a hunger-strike in an Israeli prison, Huldra (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Although he certainly qualifies for RD, the international coverage and response (as well as the implications for the region, as already made manifest through escalated violence) suggest that the manner of his death elevates it to blurb level. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb What sets this apart from, say, Jerry Springer, is the fact that the death is the story and the death is significant, not just in coverage but in what this means for the region. Curbon7 (talk) 02:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To echo my comments above and particularly regarding why I opposed blurbing Atiq Ahmed. Atiq Ahmed was quite simply a gangster who was shot. The only reason you know about it is because it was filmed and disseminated quickly via Twitter. However, besides a small region of a state of India, the death of Atiq Ahmed simply is not significant. On the other hand, death as a form of protest, killing yourself as an act of political liberation for an ethnic or religious group, in cases such as this one, is absolutely significant. Not every political suicide is significant, as they don't always have broader regional implications; this one does. Curbon7 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on notability. If he was so very famous that a blurb would be proper, I'd expect him to have Wikipedia articles about him in several dozens languages prior to his death. This guy just had one in Arabic in addition to English up until yesterday. This tels me that he was a rather obscure person and nowhere near the high standard we have for a blurb here. Shanes (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Stats FYI, the number of views yesterday was 21,449. For comparison, the top read article was another pending RD – Gordon Lightfoot – with 646,701. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pageviews stats, as you'll know, typically aren't a good comparison. The Malindi cult article, for example, only received around 20,000 total pageviews before it was posted. Curbon7 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Malindi cult didn't get many views overall and this one guy starving himself is doing even worse – the readership is down to 17,156 even with a blurb. The biggest RD is now Manobala with 293,056. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. We only blurb the death of persons of the greatest worldwide prominence (popes, Thatcher, Mandela...), which is not the case here. As a news story, it's not headline news in leading media, at least not in those I regularly read (NYT, The Guardian...).  Sandstein   07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is frankly not correct. Please see WP:ITNRD and note the criteria regarding death as the main story, which is what is being cited to support posting this. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  11:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - His death is certainly newsworthy while the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is currently in the news. STSC (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb given that clearly in the news, the article is of high quality (the key function of what ITN should be featuring) and the article goes at length to explain why he was seen as a major activist for Palestine and why he repeated imprisonments were considered a major problem by international organizations. If he was arrested once and died after 90 days due to a hunger strike, yes, I would less likely consider a blurb appropriate as that would not have drawn the attention. But 11 such imprisonments and fierce reaction by the international community seems to elevate to a key feature, someone comparable to Mandela before he was finally released. --M asem (t) 12:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Adnan may have been notable enough to post, but he wasn't nearly as notable as Mandela. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb this is the exact kind of story the blurb is appropriate for per the guidance written at WP:ITNRD; the death is part of a greater context that benefits from additional explanation. Article is in very good shape.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose we have a member of a terrorist organization, someone who recruited suicide bombers, and a NPOV article and this is who we want to be on the front page? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you search the page WP:ITN, you will not find the word 'want'. The news is the news, and the significance of news is determined by coverage, per WP:ITNSIGNIF, not the wants of editors. News outlets decide the news priorities. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, he died, and we're indiscriminate of what kind of person the deceased is as long as they have a decent article (not to mention his death has led to conflict in the area, which is why a blurb is being discussed). There's been several times negative figures have been featured on RD or even a blurb, and hey, some of those negative figures may have done good. It's not opinionated, it's just who's dead and what their death has led to. We blurbed the previous leader of Al-Qaeda on his death. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's true that he was not a very big figure in the Israel-Palestine conflict. However the fallout as a result of his death is enough for me to think that this is blurb-worthy. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC) non-ec editor comments struck
 * Support RD, oppose blurb. The article is a bit WP:PROSELINE, but in decent enough shape to post. As far as I can tell, his primarily notability relates to his detention without trial and hunger strikes. While that's a tragic story, he doesn't rise to the Thatcher / Mandela threshold we use for blurbing the deaths of politicians. While there was some international coverage of his death, that story seems to have quickly disappeared in the 24 hour news cycle. The protests mentioned in the article all occurred in 2012, not 2023. Seems unlikely this is a major threshold in the Israel-Palestine conflict. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly has not disappeared in a 24 hour news cycle, front page of Haaretz shows "IDF, Gaza militants exchange fire after Palestinian hunger striker dies" and "Prison service bracing for escalation" in its top stories. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted There is a consensus to post (I make it 15-7 with a few variables, but it's close to that regardless). Black Kite (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull photo, at least. Deeply offensive, while also there is large opposition to blurb. Revert to Brecel photo which has only been.a day or so. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way, what has 10-year old cartoon to do with blurb? Kirill C1 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not see why that image should be posted on the main page either. No idea why there's an image with such a depiction of the flag of an entire country when that country isn't wholly responsible for the things described in the blurb. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 20:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There was not large opposition to blurbing. I do agree with you regarding the cartoon, however; it doesn't really seem appropriate for the MP. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove political cartoon. The cartoon is obvious advocacy, and not remotely neutral. Not to mention that it was drawn by a known vociferous antisemite. --Yair rand (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahem, WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Antisemite may be incorrect, but 'Holocaust-trivializer'&mdash;absolutely. I was rolling my eyes when I saw that the admins had posted a Carlos Latuff cartoon on the Main Page. What were you people thinking? -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 22:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Image removed. I agree that the image may not be suitable, so changing back whilst discussion continues. Courtesy pinging  as they changed the image over. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the general rule of thumb should be to not post political cartoons (unless the blurb is about the cartoon itself). Gotitbro (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose the cartoon, it’s pretty blatantly POV-pushing especially considering the artist. If you’re going to post a photo, post one of Adnan himself. The Kip (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, hey! Let's all settle down and stop accusing people of POV violations. As much as usage of the cartoon was a poor choice, assuming bad faith without serious merit is, in and of itself, in bad faith. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not accusing whoever posted it of POV-pushing, I’m just saying the cartoon itself is POV-pushing, considering it’s a political cartoon. The Kip (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to the Main Page as much as any other articlespace area on Wikipedia, and so I'd really like to know the thought process that went behind posting that image. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AGFing, the thought process appears to be new blurb see if there is a free image and then add it. Not everything has to have some underhanded motive. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Simply, there is no non-free photograph of the subject available. That cartoon was released into the public domain by the artist. That's it. The posting admin made an oopsie, the image is off the MP now, let's AGF and move on. Curbon7 (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I second that motion: what was the admin who posted it (without prior discussion) thinking? It wasn't part of the original blurb nomination. Is it precedent/policy to slap any free image up on a blurb without a consensus (or even a discussion)? -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 16:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Dunmore

 * Support Article is long enough and well cited, and thus good enough for ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article might just scrape over the threshold for RD but it is worth noting that much of the current content is padding - titles, medals, positions - without telling the reader much about what he actually did. Why were these books notable? What did they actually say/argue? Why did contemporaries praise them? What is considered to be his personal contribution to the field/wider public discourse etc? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support verifiable with a lot of sources. Also an interesting guy to read about - his work was clearly well received as he won honours in NZ and France. Flyingfishee (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Felipe Colares

 * Support, unless the MMA record table needs to be sourced, in which case this is an oppose. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 02:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Gordon Lightfoot

 * The split by label is because that's a natural split of his career - he spent X years at one, then Y years at another. M asem (t) 02:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. Aside from that, the article does still need a lot of work. Doc Strange Mailbox Logbook 03:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Support once fixed As long as it fixed, I can't see any reason why Gordon Lightfoot shouldn't be added to RD.TheCorriynial (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So, it doesn't need your support for that reason. Every living thing with a Wikipedia article is eligible for RD (so long as it is in good condition).  The analysis we need from you is what in the article needs fixing, or is it good enough already.  Please make sure your commentary focuses on actionable quality issues with the article, because your support otherwise is not needed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many CN tags left, and the United Artists/Warner Bros years sections need dire sourcing. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the minutes to hours? As a former mariner IMO no more haunting line has ever been put to music. Memory eternal. (Not ready but let's get this up.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know where the love of Admins goes when RD Noms turn the minutes to hours? As a former editor, no more haunting line has ever been put at Main page ITN. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * support both, line and work --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 World Snooker Championship

 * Support,in WP:ITN/R. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Will never get how snooker got into ITN, but these article are always quite well written. And boy is it a relief to see an article looking quite ready before even being nominated. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Big event in the UK (and Belgium), excellent article, wonderful stuff. Effy Midwinter (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest snooker event. Fahads1982 Talk  00:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support it is great to see a qualifying article so well written right off the bat. -- The SandDoctor Talk 02:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we mention he is Belgian, and the fourth non-British world champion to emphasise the significance of his win? Whizz40 (talk) 07:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, he's the fifth, but, yes - it's a valid piece.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SOAP. Too much intrusive advertising of Cazoo. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A single image and a mention? Hmm.  But I don't see why we can't use File:WSC Chanpionship.jpg either, which is a free image instead of the non-free one there now. Black Kite (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had no particular expectations but the Cazoo logo really dominated my first impression when I browsed the topic in the mobile view. Compare with the World Chess Championship 2023 which has commercial sponsors too but doesn't give the impression that it's advertising them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We've been over this before with FIFA players having sponsorships on their jerseys, and the general consensus is that it's nearly completely unavoidable and not something we should bother ourselves with. Even so, I think you really have to crane your neck to notice the logo on a desktop PC. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon,vwhere is advertising? Certainly not in blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * He is Belgian. He is the first ever player born in Continental Europe to win the World Championship. He had never previously won a match in this tournament. All worth a mention? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)y
 * All of those are good factoids to include in the article, or even a DYK if the articles about Luca Brecel or the 2023 championship have been significantly expanded recently, but generally we don't include those types of "firsts" in the blurb. ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The single word "Belgian" couldn't even be added? It is a first, but it's also basic bio. Brecel is an unusual surname. Oh well. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: G. R. Perera

 * Oppose one CN tag remaining as well as a few unsourced bullet points in the filmography section. I'll fix it, so this oppose !vote shouldn't remain for too long. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC) Support all sourcing issues have been fixed, article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still an outstanding CN tag. Article leans more like a resume in prose format with no additional information about the types of roles that he played, instead mostly is a list of roles and films.  Spencer T• C 03:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , I've added a bit more information on the roles he's portrayed in films and resolved the citation needed tag, hopefully it works for you! Tails   Wx  22:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 03:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Uzbek constitutional referendum

 * Confusion. The nomination title is about a referendum in Uzbekistan, but the sources talk about Paraguay's election. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert ( T  •  C )</b> 15:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)  Resolved. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"> Son Of The Desert  ( T  •  C )</b> 15:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose No proposed blurb, article is really below standard; orange tagged section, also mixes future and past tenses, not fully updated, etc. Needs a lot of work.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove one objection that has been fixed. Still opposed, as major problems with the article text have not been remedied.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am proposing the blurb. Feel free to suggest alternatives. I also changed photo for that of Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--СтасС (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Кирилл С1. Now, can you please fix all of the other problems?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. Article quality is far from main-page ready. "Suggested Changes" section should probably be changed to simply include what was actually voted on in the end. The article does not make it clear who was voting and does not break down the results in any way, nor does it properly explain what exactly was being asked of voters (i.e. could use a translation in the "Question" section. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also added another blurb in the proper tense and in a format mimicking past constitutional referendum blurbs. If anyone wants to take a stab at an expanded version feel free, but I believe it's worth not overemphasizing the powers given to Mirziyoyev, who may benefit the most from these changes. His increased powers are only a part of the changes present in these new amendments. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It is obviously the reason why this was made, so I think it should be included in altblurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well feel free to mention it. But I can't support any blurb that suggests this was the only change made. There were several social changes made as well from what I read. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to The Economist (US, Apr 22-28). Mirziyoyev gets to retroactively change his current term from 5 years to 7 years, after which the two-term limit kicks in, so he could be in power until 2042.  Any blurb should definitely emphasize Mirziyoyev, because that's what's ITN. 2607:F470:E:22:74DB:2534:8250:1ECB (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, but support on notability once updates are made to the article. Roughly on par with Kazakhstan's referendum that we also posted. The Kip (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

RD: Calvin Davis

 * Not yet ready Article is a stub. Please ping me once there is expansion so I can re-assess. Curbon7 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is currently a stub, needs expansion in order to be put on ITNRD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Only 143 words of prose. Too stubby. --PFHLai (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)