Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/October 2022

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

(Posted) RD: Adam Zimmer

 * Comment. It's all and no part of his life appears missing, but its all very thin which makes me wonder if he his actually notable? I'm not going to tag or nominate it, as there are sources and I'm not familiar with the notability standards for American football coaches, but I can't help but think someone of similar achievements in a sport like rugby union wouldn't pass the notability bar. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is notable. There's lots of SIGCOV surrounding his death and much additional coverage as well, for example here, here, here, and here. Not to mention he was a defensive coordinator, which is basically the head coach of the defense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support Relatively thin but meets minimum standards; referenced.  Spencer T• C 02:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. R.I.P. --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Danny Javier

 * Oppose. The article is missing basically everything about his career with APO, there is a large and unsourced filmography with no reference in the prose beyond the first sentence noting he was among other things an actor and TV presenter. The list of his compositions doesn't belong in the lead and needs to be fully sourced. Finally, the lead needs a good copyedit, but this is the least significant of the issues. I've added an orange tag asking for the article to be expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per the usual reason and also because of the reasons stated by Thryduulf above. Also, I relocated this to October 31 as his death was reported on that day. Vida0007 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is missing information about his career. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Sadaf Naeem

 * Oppose. This needs a strong edit to make the language encyclopaedic. I very nearly tagged the death section as non-neutral for the language like "martyred". Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for notability. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 20:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This has sufficient RS coverage to meet notability in my opinion, even if primarily based on her unfortunate death. - Indefensible (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I tried to address the non-encyclopedic tone issues. As to notability issue, although she got most of coverage on her death but her life as a news reporter before still makes her notable. USaamo (t@lk) 03:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As she is not notable more than media coverage on her sudden death. People claimed her death as "martyred" but she died due to tragic incident in long march which can not be fall in Martyrdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ashraf333 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to explore her notability. All people with articles are deemed notable enough for RD. Begin an AfD or tag the article if you believe there's an issue. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Target page is currently at AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

RD: Eric Jean Baptiste

 * Comment This is barely more than a stub, and half the prose is about his death. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 20:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Not bad for a stub, interest may be low due to location but seems to have decent ref coverage and type of death (political assassination) is noteworthy. - Indefensible (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not bad for a stub...: Stubs are not suitable for the MP per WP:ITNQUALITY.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Noteworthiness of the death is also not a factor for RD. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Article does not have enough information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article needs expansion but it has enough information for news. Alex-h (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. What's there is now enough, just, but expansion would be very welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What happened from his founding his first company in 1990 (4th sentence in the Biography section) to his leaving the Mouvement Action Socialiste party in 2018 (the immediate next sentence)? That's too big a gap in coverage of his life. The intro mentioned that he was a Presidential candidate in 2015. No info on that? How did he go from a small business owner in 1990 to a presidential candidate in 2015? Please expand this article. With only 220 words of prose, this stubby wikibio is too short to qualify, anyway. --PFHLai (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose stub, only 1252 bytes of readable prose.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martine Djibo

 * Support. Quality is good enough and sourcing is up to par. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Good to go. I also already removed the red links that do not have any counterparts in other Wikipedia languages. Vida0007 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Tropical Storm Nalgae (2022)

 * Comment. Seems like this is the same event as the one closed as stale by here. Please can someone check? Ktin (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its the same one, but I question that previous being closed as stake, given that several qualified events have hit ITN in the last couple days. This has new updates numbers so it should be considered. M asem (t) 17:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thanks for the clarification. Ktin (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support again. This was closed as stale prematurely. It now has been worse than it previously was. Shwcz (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in discussions earlier this hurricane season, we were talking about how many deaths you'd need for it to be ITN-worthy. And consensus seemed to be in the 20s or so. This is about a hundred dead. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant and well-sourced. This is a common-sense blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've moved this nomination from Oct 31 to Oct 30. It seems the toll of 98 was reported on the 30th, and the storm made landfall on the 29th.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The section Tropical Storm Nalgae (2022) is unsourced. Also, there are two sections with outstanding "needs expansion" orange tags.—Bagumba (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Significant casualties. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as the article is well-sourced, but some sections need to be expanded (particularly its meteorological history). Vida0007 (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Already expanded the meteorological history section; I would just add more updates to the Philippine impacts section. Vida0007 (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: Done. This is good to go, I think. Vida0007 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Wait This article may need some expansion and some issues within the tags need to be cleared up first before ITN. Once it's done, I think it is good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - still tagged. Support after the issues are resolved. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as soon as tags are removed  - significant event, article just needs cleanup DecafPotato (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per Nfitz PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article looks good now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Miklós Lukáts

 * Support. Well-written, comprehensive article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the subject's grandson (see edit summary) has made a few edits. His new materials need REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dealt with. Curbon7 (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shane Reed

 * Support comprehensive and fully cited. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a need to ping frequent ITN updaters, especially when it's the same day you created the nomination. DatGuyTalkContribs 22:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The oldest RD currently on the MP was posted over 33 hours ago, so there isn't really a need to artificially delay posting. Mind you, my last 2 noms (Thomas Cahill and Vince Dooley) were posted 3 and 5 hours, respectively, after the nomination was created. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the stats I've compiled so far, the average time between nomination and posting for all RD nominations is 41 hours 38 minutes, the minimum is 48 minutes and the maximum 178 hours 29 minutes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Brazilian general election

 * Support It's now official, TSE has projected Lula as the winner. --Vacant0 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Globally consequential election. WMSR (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As always, we need a prose update that describes what happened. This is ITN/R and is already assumed to be significant enough to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Major global news. (Congratulations, Brazil!!) -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once ready for posting. Congratulations to Brazil! -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Major world news of significant consequence. Master of Time   ( talk ) 23:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. My condolences to the Brazilian people.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Condolences? Had to do a double take on this one, haha. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 23:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * lol? Bedivere (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Results are official with 99% precincts reporting. — That Coptic Guy (let's talk?) 23:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Lacks a sourced prose update on the second round results.—Bagumba (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A couple of sentences since added.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - A very important event. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - very obvious. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, no obvious quality issues are standing out at this time, seems good to go  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 01:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ITN/R, minimum quality guidlines met with updated content. Some good news for once. by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the 58,205,351 people whose votes did nothing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a glass half full type of person[massive lie] by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Che! Or Ers! Your choice, honestly. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My mandated non-political comment would be the common sense centrist option. by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. The article probably needs a mention of the seeming disruptions on the day of &mdash; roadblocks suspiciously concentrated in pro-Lula areas, leading to calls for the close-of-polling hour to be pushed back. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making unnecessary political comments. It's harmful to productive discussion. --Yair rand (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What's so fine about mine? I think it harms democracy itself! Certainly invites an off-topic rebuttal, at least... InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no rule in ITN saying I can't express support for something. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  03:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Obviously an important event. pipe058 02:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Long live the party of democracy! Brazil can live without fear again, thanks to colleagues' comments! Otávio Astor Vaz Costa (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Prose is more than adequate, and I for one would love to hear what other users think about this result. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Do other election articles have an "Incidents" section? This one has issues with WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:WEIGHT. Joofjoof (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The UNDUE tag on the political violence section was removed some hours ago, despite ongoing discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 03:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been support for the tag to date at Talk:2022_Brazilian_general_election, which has been ongoing for weeks. —Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A great day for Brazil. Someone should update the map on the pink tide article as well. Davey2116 (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making me aware of such a great article/interesting read. I've made said change to the map. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * . El_C 04:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - So are we supposed to be enforcing WP:NOTFORUM on ITN/C with the purpose of avoiding political commentary? I remember a little while ago someone said we needed to start doing that. The above commentary leads me to believe that perhaps these words were in vain. --🌈WaltCip - (talk)  13:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Morbi bridge collapse

 * Conditional Support Currently a stub but once expanded this needs to be posted. [Holy bleep. ITN is turning into an internet catalogue of mass casualty events.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - So many terrible tragedies recently..
 * Article needs expansion, so we might want to wait until there's more coverage to put it up. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is just awful. Shwcz (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Far too short. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality - I definitely support this for the ITN. However, the quality of the article is bad. There's no information on the collapse itself in the article. Rather it only talks about the background and the cause. Once the article's quality approves I will support. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support It is going from 100 deaths and up. I know stubness of this article is a problem but putting this on ITN can improve the article greatly. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Since prior comments, article has gained info about the collapse, background, and initial rescue efforts. This goes in tandem with the tragedy's massive scale to demonstrate that the article most certainly should be on ITN. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Possibly could be longer but its close enough and can expected to be expanded more --M asem (t) 01:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, article is good enough IMO and it will fit in perfectly with all the other mass-casualty incidents (car bombs, the Korea crush, a mass shooting, Rishi Sunak moving into No.10) that are currently on the Main Page, just in time for Halloween. We might even have the first ITN that consists entirely of such incidents. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is well referenced and enough information is given Sherenk1 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above, looks like the article is ready to be included. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article still has little information on the topic, and it has no significance beyond the fact that there were many deaths. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support major story, article just barely long enough and presumably will expand soon as more information, investigations, and reactions actually happen. Juxlos (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Theoretically support, currently oppose This is important enough for ITN, but the quality isn’t good enough. This shouldn’t be marked “Ready” at this time Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Japan Series

 * Support - Article looks good and the Japan Series has been featured ITN before. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Adequate length and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Could use some expansion, basing on the 2021 Japan Series article, but it otherwise seems fine in terms of referencing and content. Curbon7 (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This needs a little bit more referencing, but otherwise I'm fine on this being in ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Mogadishu car bombings

 * Support — Absolutely. STSC (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support – It meets minimum requirements and it has a huge death toll by. This is also comparable in deaths to the 2011 bombing, which we posted with a strong supporting consensus. GamerOfStrategy (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is about at minimum length but otherwise well sourced. --M asem (t) 14:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support as per above, event has enough body count to be considered news. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Haitian crisis

 * Stale The UN decree happened on the 21 October. Stephen 22:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Seoul Halloween crowd crush

 * Support once fleshed out. Mooonswimmer 18:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Article needs expansion but this would likely be a postable item. --M asem (t) 17:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Terrible tragedy. -TenorTwelve (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Rare event. Shwcz (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Submitted alt blurb. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article needs expansion (which will come in due course) but happy otherwise XxLuckyCxX (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support The article is at least start-class now and is independently verified by multiple notable secondary sources. My heart goes out to the victims and their families. Captain  Galaxy  18:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: I have not reviewed the article itself for quality, but this is clearly significant enough.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 18:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: The death count is quite high. Therealviklo (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support: While this is still a developing story, this is a very significant event and several news agencies have already reported this tragedy. RIP to those who have died and I wish a speedy recovery to all the injured. Vida0007 (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article meets minimum quality guidelines and certaintly significant as per above. Vote by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – But should be renamed to Itaewon for clarity instead of Seoul Yienshawn (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? Itaewon is in the (geographic) centre of Seoul - unlike the Seoul Olympics, which is much further out, right on the edge of Seoul - should we rename that as the Songpa-gu Olympics? Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Obvious Support. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted -- KTC (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I recognize this is standard, but it's weird that this has already rolled off of ITN. Any way to add another blurb line? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve sometimes seen 5 blurbed stories, but Idk how they do that. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The number of stories is largely a product of balancing both sides of the main page. Stephen 08:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Kathleen Booth

 * Stale. She died on 29 September, but what matters is when it was first reported in a reliable source. The Times published an obituary on 18 October, I don't know whether that was the earliest but it doesn't matter as that was more than 7 days ago so this is stale even if it was. This is a shame because the article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Too late. Death was updated into the wikibio on October 7th. Eligibility ended 7 days after that. This could have been a fine addition to the RD line. Oh, well.... --PFHLai (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Tropical Storm Nalgae (2022)

 * Support after it is expanded. There are still some tags present to prevent it from being posted. Shwcz (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this one. Although this will definitely be expanded like the Itaewon tragedy (the crowd crush) above and this has also become one of the most significant storms to ever hit the country (I think this is the first time that almost the entire country got ravaged by a single storm), there are still issues needed to be addressed, especially with regards to its subsections.
 * Vida0007 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is red-tagged for a history merge. There are also multiple sections orange-tagged for expansion. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The history merge issue has been handled, but the article could probably do with a bit more prose now. --M asem (t) 17:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) New PM in Lesotho

 * Oppose on quality. Sam Matekane needs more information about his new role, maybe more about his campaign and his business. After (even just minor) expansion, it has my full support. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  06:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The item seems quite stale. Looking for coverage in mainstream media, all I'm finding is the FT and that was three weeks ago which is when the election happened. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The nominated item is ITNR, which means significance is assumed and breadth of coverage is not relevant. The item is not stale as the succession was yesterday.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Article quality isn't great, but the topic is notable enough for ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article quality is the only thing we are permitted to judge, and it is insufficient.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is true. Conditional Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Sam Matekane article is a stub. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's a stub  4me689  (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Article lacks enough information. Alex-h (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment We get the point that the article is a stub, we don't need 4 different people repeating that. Curbon7 (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Joyce Molyneux

 * Oppose stub, the bibliography is unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vince Dooley

 * Support Everything appears to be referenced, and the article is holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Morantz

 * Support. Interesting article, well written and fully cited. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Jack

 * Support. Article is in good shape and appears comprehensive. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support British writer and editor for outlets of fact and fiction, not sure what is or isn't true here, but it certainly does appear wholly based on reliable (if somewhat autobiographical) sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hannah Pick-Goslar

 * Support. Looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Nice updates to the article. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Calvin O. Butts

 * Pretty Much Support, though that long and winding unattributed quote in the middle of Career should probably be paraphrased first. And "historically is" is a strange way to describe the size of his church; maybe someone knows the contemporary stats there. Aside from that, American academic administrator, not bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done – paraphrased quote and changed to "historically was". —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool InedibleHulk (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is not exceptional, but we don't require it to be. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jerry Lee Lewis

 * Support Based on the requirements required here for ITN. TheCorriynial (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are a good number of unsourced paragraphs (like in Later Career) --M asem (t) 17:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also oppose blurb. While he might have been great in his heyday, his career has been significantly tarnished from his personal life in in his later years. This is also not as sudden or surprising a death as Michael Jackson who falls into that same category but his death still was a major major event. M asem (t) 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * His career was tarnished in 1958, long before his Legacy section says he was cemented in various greatness and two months after his first album hit. Wasn't Legacy your big criterion once? Anyway, yeah, I'm not surprised. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per Masem. Would support a blurb without any doubt. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurbless, pending cleanup. Mega name value, skeletal update. If anyone's worried today's hepcats might recognize him as the dead comedian (or overlook him as "just another Rosalind Wiener Wyman type"), a sharp black and white picture's worth a few key words. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good golly, Miss Molly, the article needs some work. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I put the "Additional Citations Required" Template for a reason Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Oppose blurb. We didn't blurb Kirk Douglas or Olivia de Havilland who were far more significant in their field than Mr. Lewis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We should have blurbed them. (as well as Angela Lansbury) Kirill C1 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for citations. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD once it's ready. Oppose blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are nine major paragraphs that lack a single references, and many others that do not end with a reference. Still a lot of work to do, but being actively edited still. Stephen 00:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the unsourced discography. —Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Acquisition of Twitter

 * Support – much media coverage, large sum, one of the largest social networks, and it comes after a hefty period of threats to terminate the acquisition. It's definitely more newsworthy now than in April 675930s (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh and also, the government formations following the Swedish and Italian elections were posted in addition to the electoral results 675930s (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted it. Noah Talk 11:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Incredibly high profile purchase, on the front page of every major news site. As has been already pointed out, we posted the Activision-Blizzard purchase, so why not this, which is arguably more consequential? This will probably be remembered as a start of a new era in social media. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Given the drama that took place between April and now, it's worth posting again. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  15:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Support Very notable purchase. X-Editor (talk) 01:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already posted in April BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally I agree with logic like that (see the Italian election), but this time I don't know, as (1) the first posting was six months ago, and (2) the drama that took place in between that made it look like this deal may not happen. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It was probably a mistake to post the deal in April in the first place, but what's done is done. This is incredibly notable, and is on the front page of every major news site. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Take-private transactions happen all the time and we do not generally post closures of transactions. $42B isn't particularly large either. If we look at List of largest mergers and acquisitions, more than 30 acquisitions in the 2010s decade exceed that amount in transaction value. feminist (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For that matter, I feel like WP:BIAS affects what we decide to post. Looking at American M&As, We posted Elon's announcement 6 months ago; we posted Activision Blizzard; but we did not post VMware (another software company acquired this year, with only a slightly smaller transaction value), and we did not post United Technologies (a much larger merger) in 2019/20.
 * We're looking at the coverage. Both Twitter and Activision Blizzard at the time were massively reported on by mainline sources, while the lesser known (though more valuable) mergers of VMWare and United Technology did not get the same type of coverage. Its more than just dollar value, but how it is seen as "shaking up" the industry by RSes. --M asem (t) 02:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Activision-Blizzard is a borderline household name for many people, whetheras I'd never even heard of VMware until now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As we posted the announcement back when it was made, and despite the number of tribulations in court over this, that it is happening is not really a surprise. --M asem (t) 02:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Acquisition of one of the biggest social media platforms. Clearly notable news with potentially significant ramifications. GWA88 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Whoever didn't sign their post is right: Activition Blizzard, VMware, and United Technologies didn't have a fraction of the news coverage as Elon/Twitter. We are "in the news" still, right? Sure it's bias, but it's not up to us to WP:RGW, just to reflect reality. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But we are not a news ticker, and we already posted about the planned acquisition. It has happened; just like we don't post inaugurations of elected leaders, we don't post the completion of acquisitions. M asem (t) 02:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Inaugurations are a fait accompli (beyond other circumstances that would then be noteworthy themselves). This wasn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And if the deal failed to happen, we likely would have posted that as an "other circumstance". We have to be consistent here. M asem (t) 04:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we covering what's "in the news" or are we not? Are we a "news ticker" or are we gatekeepers? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Mixed, leaning towards oppose — Waiting for this to hit ITN. This has significance, but I disagreed with the posting of this story in April, and I disagree with bringing it up now. It's not a particularly large acquisition, and it will likely be a slow start before anything of significance occurs. Although Twitter itself is the fourth most-visited site on the Internet looking at Similarweb data, Twitter, Inc. doesn't even make the Fortune Global 500 list. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning support. The size of the acquisition in dollar value terms doesn't seem like much of a factor to me at all. I'm sure enormous but obscure parent companies of parent companies are acquired all the time. However, this is a household name and a highly influential platform, one expected to be so in the future. BD2412  T 02:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already posted. We are not a newsfeed or ticker for all things related to Elon Musk and/or Twitter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is bigger than just Musk, or even Twitter though. It's likely this aquisition will greatly affect the entire internet. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Citation Needed. Twitter does not control the internet in any way. If there's anything that will change the internet that we should report on, it is the onset of the Digital Markets Act in the EU that will be overseeing how Big Tech operates, starting Nov 1. M asem (t) 15:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Twitter does not control the internet, but this deal is incredibly notable and high profile, and it is sending shockwaves throughout the net. Everyone is talking about it, it is in the news everywhere. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll add that Twitter itself is incredibly central to the political and social systems of the western world, with most politicians, celebrities and influencers using it as an outlet to communicate with the public. This acquisition will greatly affect this. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing a lot of CRYSTALBALLING here. But even if it's all true, it's not relevant to the fact that we have already posted this. "It's super important." is not an argument for posting the same thing twice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support - It's hard for me finding the value in re-upping this in ITN, but I suppose an argument can be made that the controversies that delayed the merger make it worth of posting again. I wouldn't be mad if it were posted again, but ultimately, this "slot" could be filled with something new. Ayyydoc (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks in good shape. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  04:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, per BD2412. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: When the original announcement was posted people complained that it was too soon and that we should wait until the deal closed. Now that the deal's closed we've got people saying that it shouldn't be posted because it already has been. It's major news (to the point of having an article just about the acquisition) and shouldn't be neglected because it already has been posted once before, especially since the first posting was six months ago and there were several points in the process that made it look like the deal was going to be called off. PolarManne (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Ayyydoc. Schierbecker (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It is technically double-posting, but I think this case is not too big a deal due to the kerfuffle with the deal, the fact that its been a while, and that it is now official. Curbon7 (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Already posted at ITN, but the subsequent fall-out is there, for which this might be seen as a slight follow up on (though it wasn't covered at ITN). Gotitbro (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Arguments simply premised on a repeat posting fail to convince me. Changing to weak support per the same argument as above. Gotitbro (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per BD2412. The last posting was half a year ago and the parties literally went to court over if the merger would happen or not, so there was definitely some uncertainty in the process unlike inaugurations for elections. Bigger business deals don't get anywhere close to the amount of coverage Twitter does because they are mostly of no interest to general society, whereas Twitter is both a very popular social media site in general, but also popular among journalists. As a kicker, the last ITN blurb right now is over two weeks old and can hardly be considered to be "in the news". Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no, not again. We are not Musk’s community manager. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support for all the developments that happened between then and now. Quantum XYZ (talk) 07:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose this again? We made the same mistake back in April, and then Musk backed out of the deal. Fool me once... YD407OTZ (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He announced the deal back in April. Back then, he didn't own the company. Right now, he literally owns the company, having even fired the CEO & CFO...so I'd say to announce this would be a good idea now. Twistedaxe (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this will be a good lesson for WP users to not trust anything coming out of Musk's mouth unless independently and thoroughly confirmed by a third party. Musk already plays the mainstream media like a fiddle with his brazen statements, designed to incite controversy (much like a traditional internet troll). It would be a shame if WP also continues to be played like this. YD407OTZ (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ITN is for reporting on what is in the news, if a major news story that is reported on by respected sources turns out to be a hoax, that's their fault for not verifying it. We're not journalists, we're the newsboys. PolarManne (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Media also regularly report on "X tweeted Y" or celebrity gossip stories. Those aren't nominated or posted to ITN either. I do believe we have a responsibility of ensuring the quality of the stories on our front page. Musk acts like a fundamentally unserious person on Twitter (and sometimes also in the real world, as evidenced by this sage), so in my opinion we should treat him as such. Perhaps if we could go back in time and un-post the original announcement... YD407OTZ (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But this isn't some prank by Musk, this is a serious business deal that may end up being one of the most high profile aquisitions of the decade. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A huge event and acquirement by Musk. Definitely notable. Twistedaxe (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weal oppose – The article looks very good, and based on that I would lean towards support. However, having already posted this purchase before (albeit before a legal battle and all that), I feel really uncomfortable about posting this again. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- from a global perspective, this has the potential to affect more people than the musical chairs of UK politics, and it's definitely in the news, so I see no reason not to post this. Twitter is incredibly popular and this is big news. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  09:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All the current blurbs are about national leadership (UK, China, Italy, Sweden) and that seems too monotonous. This item is in the news in a big way and would provide some variety. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * whether or not to give variety to the MainPage doesn't automatically attribute notability to an event. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The notability of the topic seems ample as ITN has posted it before. The issue of variety is a reason to post this development again.  Other main page sections try to present a variety of topics to show the range of Wikipedia and, as ITN is especially slow-moving, it should address this issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That we already posted once is ample reason not to post it again. Additionally, we cannot curate how the news happens and so that fact that there are several world leadership changes at ITN is not something we should try to force change. Next week it could be all sporting events; we wouldn't change it for that either. M asem (t) 12:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We would be following the news here, not forcing it. The topic has been leading in major news media like the BBC and NYT and so we have significance.  The nominated article has adequate quality.  Per WP:ITNCRIT, quality and significance are the two main grounds for acceptance.  The posting of an earlier stage in the process 6 months ago is not an obstacle as there's no such ITN rule.  We have plenty of recent precedents showing that it's quite acceptable and reasonable to post further developments in such a significant story. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Patar knight. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Important news about a media site used by millions all over the world.BabbaQ (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Globally important. The other mergers/buyouts (even with bigger numbers) were not important to people in Asia, for example. But this one is important to me too. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted by other editors above, this was already posted in April. While I understand the argument that the deal could have fallen apart, this is true of most acquisitions. In such situations, then they could be an ITN item if and when the transaction does not proceed. However this did not happen, it's merely the consummation of a transaction that was posted to ITN earlier in the year. If we were post this item again, then it sets an ugly precedent whereby other (announcement/take effect) combinations are double-posted in the future. This could be other merger and acquisition activity, or even election results. Chrisclear (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There were already 2 posts for the Italian and Swedish elections, so it’s arguable that the precedent’s already been set. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, it's a very big deal  4me689  (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - the posting of the agreement rather than this completion was a mistake, but that doesn't mean this shouldn't be posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is normally that when acquisitions complete, they do not get any coverage, but maybe a whimper from the media; it is when the deal is first announced that we have determined is the appropriate point to post such news stories because that it is when they are clearly best covered. M asem (t) 12:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but it seems after the fiasco of this acquisition in particular that takeovers and such should be posted at the end rather than the start. I recall there being notable coverage both on announcement and on completion of other notable events, such as the Acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And here you see the Carrie Fisher problem. We have guidelines to keep our behavior consistent, so we appear reasonable to the reader. The guidelines sit there, acceptable to all for years. Then one day they get in the way of editors fanboying-out, and suddenly the guidelines are broken.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. Not favorable to going all in on a repeat posting, but it's probably permissible in this case. DarkSide830 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have discussed the posting of mergers extensively. This exact issue (deals that get announced to great fanfare sometimes get cancelled; is the news when they get announced ,or when they get blocked/done?) has been raised and arbitrated. Having these discussions lucidly and coming to a reasonable consensus is central to how we run this site. Throwing all that out the window because of a buzzy story is sacrilegious.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We posted the acquisition of Activision-Blizzard by Microsoft a few months ago, and this is arguably more high-profile than that. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Twice? Because that is the conversation here - there is reasonable debate about posting mergers at announcement or execution, but we absolutely do not post twice.   GreatCaesarsGhost   18:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it was a mistake to post in April, we should've waited for the deal to close, but I think this is notable as Twitter is incredibly influential in the political and social systems of the western world. It is the main outlet for politicians, influencers and celebrities to communicate with the public. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Important news event. -- lomrjyo (public) ( talk ) 13:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is already posted before, but with the deal closed and fully takes effect, I feel this should be ITN again. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Greatly dislike Elon, but now that it's been completed and is a certainty, one of the world's wealthiest men acquiring one of its largest social media platforms is certainly newsworthy. The Kip (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose We don't post nearly enough business news on ITN, and posting unusually large mergers and takeovers is one of the easiest ways to remedy this. This is one of the four largest corporate acquisitions of 2022, and that makes it worth posting. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC) It was previously posted, it doesn't need to be posted again. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already posted the announcement; therfore we don't need to post the conclusion as well.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per PK3. There was a whole lot of intermediary drama between the announcement and the finalization, but this was otherwise a by-the-book sale that would not warrant a deviation from our usual practice on this. 🌈WaltCip - (talk)  17:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already posted before. Bedivere (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now that it is a done deal. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Already posted in April and the story has not changed. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  23:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see what has changed since it was posted in April. Removed "Ready" - this needs more discussion (feel free to replace it if you feel that isn't the case). Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While it is reasonable to discuss whether stories like this should be posted at the start or the end of the process, it is not reasonable to post both. We posted this one at the start and nothing in the article gives any reasons why it should be posted again. Thryduulf (talk)
 * Oppose as this was already posted. I'm not seeing a compelling discussion above on why this should be posted again. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't we post both when Liz Truss resigned and when Rishi Sunak took office....? -- Rockstone Send me a message!  06:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To me, those seem like 2 separate events. I think a better example is that there have been 2 blurbs recently for the Italian and Swedish elections. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose — Just a business deal. STSC (talk) 09:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. It's a business deal that is already changing the world. Nsk92 (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. It is affecting Twitter users, and I know a few companies have pulled out of advertising, but the bulk of the implications being reported so far is all within the context of Twitter itself. M asem (t) 13:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Musk said many times that he is a "free speech absolutist" and he believes Twitter should allow all content that is legally permissible. That has already produced the effect of a surge in racist and anti-semitic as well as COVID and election conspiracy theories posts on Twitter after Musk took over . Musk also stated many times that banning Trump from Twitter was wrong, and now an unban of Trump is expected . Analysts expect that we will already see a difference in Twitter's approach to misinformation under Musk for the upcoming elections in Brazil and the U.S. . That's just for starters, and it's only been a few days. Nsk92 (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "On Twitter", so not the world. Yes, I'm fully aware of the long-term prospects of, say, allowing Trump back on, but that is all in the realm of speculation and not actual facts we can use. M asem (t) 15:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "Guy buys thing" and "Final hurdles cleared in guy's purchase of thing" aren't really two separate events. Many nominations here are met with "This is just an announcement. Wait for the event. We don't post things twice." Wikipedia jumped the gun and posted this early, but that doesn't mean that we need to post it twice. If anything, it means that we need to be more patient in the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Feminist and Masem. Not even the biggest technology-related acquisition this year, will be on the waning end of the current news cycle by the time this discussion concludes, and, most importantly, it has already been blurbed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Such a big deal should come in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerald Stern

 * Support. No obvious issues. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be good to go. Well-referenced and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Shah Cheragh massacre

 * Support an event this big should naturally be on the front of the news, support blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is a good enough start. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Big political ramifications in Iran due to the ongoing crisis there. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait I guess since the disaster-stub guy went cuckoo and got himself banned, I have to step in as the voice of reason. There is very little detail about the actual event at the moment. Let's give this a few hours to flesh out, please.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd always known him as the 'old man dies' guy. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Significant, well-sourced for now. By the time this is posted, the update with the details should likely have come in. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, looks like a very important event and well-sourced.  4me689  (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - significant. Definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – ITN worthy and significant. The blurb would better mention the shooting was by Islamic State. -- M h hossein   talk 05:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Islamic State perpetration is contentious at best. ISIL has also in the past claimed responsibility for attacks that they had nothing to do with, like Las Vegas . Curbon7 (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I second what Curbon7 said. This was even mentioned in sourced information that Mhhossein removed . --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready - Article in good shape and consensus seems to be in favour of posting. Quantum XYZ (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. There was no discussion about whether the blurb or alt is preferred so I've gone with the first one as slightly more concise, but I've got no objections to it being replaced by the alt. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Blurb seems good. Support as per above. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Shiraz shah cheragh.jpg (shown on right) has been protected, in case we want to put this pic on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD:Rieko Kodama

 * Support, well-written, comprehensive and fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - five months is a very long stretch to be considered "recent". This is usually done for gaps of a few days. It doesn't seem like this person's death was particularly hidden, just that they did not have the sort of continuous public presence that would have resulted in their death being news at the time. --LukeSurlt c 09:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Recent" for the purposes of recent deaths means "first reported in a reliable source within the past 7 days", which for this person was today (27 October). The reference in the article says . Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And at least from other major video game figures that have died, Japanese culture tends to not make public death notices until the family has resolved post-death considerations, and even then these are quietly made, compared to western culture where there's lots of attention on the death of important figures. M asem (t) 12:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Can't see any issues in the quality of the article, and the delayed announcement is acceptable under ITN / RD guidelines. --M asem (t) 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, well-written and well sourced  4me689  (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Per above, well written article. Alex-h (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Thomas Cahill

 * Support Adequate depth, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 00:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rosalind Wiener Wyman

 * what are all these down in the refs: ProQuest 167119758. : ; Missing or empty |title= (help) ?   GreatCaesarsGhost   20:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * those are bare ProQuest URLs (I did not add them – they were there even before July this year). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done – all filled in now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sorry, didn't mean to imply anything, I just had never seen that error before. Article looks pretty good to me.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support article looks great. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucianne Goldberg

 * Support Looks fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Lia Origoni

 * Support. Short, but good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, until all the red links are fixed  4me689  (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK. Curbon7 (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for even featured articles to have no red links, and sufficient quality for ITN is a much lower bar. Thryduulf (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Aside from being very short, what's there is littered with odd grammar and run-ons. And it feels like this was chopped from the Italian version with lots of context left behind. For example "she decided to focus not on her violin playing but on her soprano voice" when neither was previously mentioned.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pierre Soulages

 * Oppose Uncited paragraphs in the biography section that need citing. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support when the article is completely cited. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for citations. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: this centenarian and outstanding artist deserves to be mentioned, so we better work on it. I don't speak French, so will be of little help, but I'll do what I can. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed some refs, added two in English, changed the order of things, but there's still work to be done. Need a break, possibly until tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * please look again, Onegreatjoke, SusanLesch, FAdesdae378, anybody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. The second half of the Biography section is proseline and the final paragraph of the Artistic practice section is just two sentences that don't really flow together. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, please, please, everybody: improve that! I worked for hours finding references and adding basic links, on a subject I'm not familiar with, in a language I don't speak (not only the French, but also English art terms are Chinese to me) and still feel like the only one, and the next RD bio is waiting . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added more detail, - please look again, Onegreatjoke, SusanLesch, FAdesdae378, anybody. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked as needing attention. I'm not inclined to upgrade from my weak support at the moment, but it does need more eyes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you read the New York Times? I can't. Le Monde? I could only with translating help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging common ITNRD reviewers @Stephen, @Spencer, @PFHLai. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - looks decent. Biggest question is about the quality of Special:LinkSearch/https://www.levygorvy.com/ as a source and the publications section, but I'm not sure what the proper manual of style for artist articles are anyways. I also found another NY Times article you may find useful https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/arts/international/pierre-soulages-master-of-black-still-going-strong.html. DatGuyTalkContribs 21:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thank you! Only I can't access TNYT. Please add what you find, - I'll do the same for the NZZ I found, but tomorrow, - too tired after rehearsal. I haven't seen publications like that before, but like it, and they are supported by a ref. Most people will not care, but I found it fascinating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Cyclone Sitrang

 * Oppose Stub and not even properly formatted as a TC article. Noah Talk 12:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose not a important event, and did not do a lot of damage.  4me689  (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Conditional support the article has the potential to be a significant event if only it was updated more. Shwcz (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Article needs to be updated. As of now it is nothing more than a stub. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait - Article needs to be extended; it's only just over 3000 bytes. Redoct87 (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality Stub. The Kip (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Article need to be expands.  HurricaneEdgar    20:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Davis

 * support, this guy looks notable.  4me689  (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability has nothing to do with RD. Curbon7 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post". Focus on the quality of the article, and if it's suitable to be on the Main Page. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  15:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Article seems good with nice updates. Skynxnex (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose awards section is orange tagged and there is a CN tag further up the page. Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support awards section now sourced, other assorted article cleanup completed —&#8288;Collint c 14:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The works section still needs additional citations, now tagged as such. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: books now cited, removed CN box. —&#8288;Collint c 17:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's been fixed, but the last sentence of the Criticism section has been tagged (by someone else) as dubious. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've trimmed this. —&#8288;Collint c 16:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems people keep finding new problems with this, the student activism section is now orange tagged for expansion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A big expansion appears to be in progress. Perhaps we should hold a bit, and maybe re-review this wikibio over the weekend. --PFHLai (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Article now appears stable and without issues. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Farquhar Wilkinson

 * Support. No obvious issues. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gordon Fee

 * Oppose citation needed for his sister. I also fixed a dead link and corrected tense but haven't done a thorough check to see if there are any more. Thryduulf (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence re. his sister, as I cannot find a reliable source to verify. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The references could do with tidying up but everything does now appear sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Halligan

 * Support. Reasonably comprehensive and fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jules Bass

 * Oppose. Most of the Career section is still unsourced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've referenced the article now – please have another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is now sufficiently referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN after my edits. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note – the article may not be stable at the moment because repeatedly removes all the references in the filmography section, despite being instructed not to.  They claim that "no sources necessary for pages with sources" and that they are "familiar with Wikipedia policy on verifiability", but it is clear they are not. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it, if that's what's being referred to, and also the fact that this specific policy is neither encouraged nor enforced when it comes to filmographies and discographies on the majority of major pages, but I'm more than willing to make an exception on this page and let it go, it just looks like an anomaly, which is fine. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , Rotten Tomatoes is not a WP mirror, and is rated as "generally reliable" at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no problem there. I'm fine with that being on the page, I just wouldn't have put it in so many times. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what he means is that filmographies and discographies do not have to be sourced (i.e. simply linking it to a WP page suffices). We both know that this is not the case. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All I meant was that this is not how it's done on most major pages on Wikipedia, but again, I'm cool with experimenting. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct in saying most major pages on Wikipedia don't do this. Also, most major pages on Wikipedia are not up to the standard required to be posted to the Main Page.  I'm hoping this makes it onto the MP, hence why every entry needs a source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marked ready. Article looks in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Adidas Yeezy termination

 * Oppose, this is obviously not worldwide news, this is just straight-up domestic. if you don't believe me, go ahead and open a new section on talk: 2022, you're going to get unanimous consent saying no.  4me689  (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Adidas is a German brand, Ye is an American rapper, and this collaboration has been sold globally. I wouldn't boil it down to it being just domestic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , news does not have to be "worldwide" to merit consideration here. 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. (And we don't care what the gatekeepers at Talk:2022 think.) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, all of the other stuff in ITN mainly affects one specific region, with bubbling effects throughout the world. I oppose the nomination, but the other arguments I have seen on my side are pathetic. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  17:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the stuff in ITN mainly affects one area of the word in one way or another. I oppose as well, but the other arguments I have seen are pathetic. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  17:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Obscure clothing line, no wide implications, only a one-sentence update to the article. Business deals are made and unmade all the time. If West's comments have caused widespread offence they should be discussed in the Kanye West article, or a new article written. Either way, falling out with one business partner is nowhere near significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 16:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to falsely claim something is obscure :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 16:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree that this should be on ITN either. However, the Yeezy line is far from obscure. Respectfully, you're wrong about that. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  17:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning on oppose. I was divided between oppose and support. On one hand, this was indeed a highly successful partnership, only being killed by the fucking shitstorm that is Ye in 2022 (keep in mind that the partnership stayed even during previous controversies). On the other, that's all this is - a partnership. I doubt this will have a huge impact on the world like the other stuff in ITN. I think it would fit more in Portal:Current events, to be honest.
 * I understand arguments for support, and as I said, I was pretty divided on this topic and what my opinion was on being on ITN. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  17:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, are we going to reject everything that isn't political or disastrous? The shoes did $1.3B in sales in 2019, obviously this is something a lot of people care about, and this whole debacle is front-page news. — VersaceSpace  🌃 17:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose We didn't put the antisemitic tweets on the main page, we definitely don't need to put the reactions.  𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦&#124;☎️&#124;📄 17:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unimportant corporate trivia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Very strong oppose. This is of course a well-known brand and there certainly is a large demographic of people that might find this news important. But we can't simply feature non-groundbreaking news that have little in the way of being resounding events, or deaths of important people. Mjeims (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose - As much as I can see and understand the impact of this, I don't think we here at ITN would be able to concisely explain the significance of this termination. And we could not do so in a manner that is meaningful to those who don't closely follow the machinations of the shoe/fashion and entertainment industries. For similar context: Would we have posted Kobe Bryant dropping his Adidas contract to go to Nike? That was a big deal in that industry too, even if it wasn't a force-out. --🌈WaltCip - (talk)  19:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Bryant's partnerships compared to the power of Yeezy. Yeezy was bringing in $2 billion annually within 7 years since its inception, only comparable to Air Jordan which has been around since 1985 and brings in $3 billion. I've added additional citations to the Adidas Yeezy article highlighting the brand's influence and acclaim. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 19:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd like to challenge your assertion of this "making headlines everywhere", as I can't find this in the headlines (or anywhere) on the national news websites I visit. I don't think this meets the notability requirements. YD407OTZ (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Associated Press, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, France24, Vogue – What other sources were you relying on? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ )
 * Well, for example on, , I don't see it on the main page. Perhaps it is more common on English-speaking websites? YD407OTZ (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be more common on English-speaking website, but the story is still being reported on by your sources. AD, Spiegel, RTBF. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 20:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) WhatsApp outage

 * I think we need more information about this, such as if it is an attack or just a technical problem. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Bluntly, I wouldn't consider it front-page news if the service closed for good, never mind it being down for a few hours. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose a short outage of a global tech service is not particularly noteable. One of the big services goes down every few months for a bit. Perhaps if this lasts a long time it may be more noteworthy. --LukeSurlt c 10:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In fact, service has already been restored. And while this is particularly annoying, it's neither new nor are we unaware that it will happen again. In any case, as 331dot says, perhaps it might make sense to discuss this nomination if the server crash was the result of some kind of cyber-attack, especially if it originated in certain countries (Russia in particular). _-_Alsor (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Brief interruption of service, quickly restored, with no sign of any lasting impact. I don't think this is even notable enough to justify an article. Modest Genius talk 10:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt this article will be expanded to the degree required for ITN. Impact seems unclear. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose service was only interrupted for 2 hours, with unclear impact as per above. The article also would need substantial expansion and rewriting, as it is extremely stubby and isn't written very well. I'm not even sure if it meets notability guidelines per WP:EVENT and WP:NEWSPAPER, but I may be wrong as I'm unexperienced in these areas. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  10:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Solar eclipse of October 25, 2022

 * tsmt Su7868 (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Solar eclipses happen all the time, in a very predictable manner. A total solar eclipse isn't notable, let alone a partial solar eclipse. Partial solar eclipses are much more common than total ones, and aren't nearly as notable. 71.44.212.75 (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose ever posting a partial eclipse. Those are fairly frequent* and unspectacular events, with nothing much to say about them. Even total eclipses depend how many people saw it and if there are sufficient sources to write a meaningful article. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * *The previous one was in April this year, visible from South America. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Not seeing anything particularly special about this article on a partial eclipse, besides the pretty pictures. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per all of the above. Quite the yawn. – Sca (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Burt Gustafson

 * Support. Article is in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 01:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Jay Osborn Jr.

 * support looks well-sourced  4me689  (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ash Carter

 * Defense Secretary, not Secretary of State. The two positions are uniquely different. Imagine if McNamara were the Secretary of State. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * it's fixed  4me689  (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm adding references now, so I'm adding myself as an updater. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good work; looks fully referenced now. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , this message is to tell you that there's already a discussion here about Ash Carter  4me689  (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Even discounting the fact that he had one of the biggest roles in the US, the article is in good shape. ColorTheoryRGB   C M Y K  17:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-written article, definitely notable character. GuardianH (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leslie Jordan

 * Comment: Largely unsourced filmography, will probably be stale by the time it gets fixed up. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose completely unsourced filmography, the film and television section is largely proseline and there are facts dotted about that seem devoid of any context - e.g. what was it about his COVID posts that gained him followers? Did his being short and southern have any relevance to his career? Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Highly accomplished and talented actor and performer with a massive amount of credits in film and TV. Article might need some more improvements but it's getting there. As things stand, it looks to be fully sourced to me and I support it, but some editors might want more improvements or expansions made.--SitcomyFan (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether it is "getting there" or not is irrelevant, either it's of sufficient quality for the main page in its current state (in which case support it) or it isn't (in which case oppose it). Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Some IP did a blanket citation on the filmography to TV Guide & BFI that is not supported. Of the first five I checked only one was there.   GreatCaesarsGhost   01:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked the first 3 TV entries and they were supported by the TV Guide ref (but not sure why those needed multiple citations). —Bagumba (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I specifically look for those works without a hyperlink to a standalone article, as these are naturally harder to find citation for. Looking at the first nine such credits under film, two appear on TV Guide and zero on BFI.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The article is being rapidly improved as we speak. While he was alive, there were articles written about him by New York Times, Variety, LA Times, and Hollywood Reporter. His death has been covered in detailed obituary articles by those publications as well as BBC, Fox News, Associated Press, ABC, Washington Post, CNN, Billboard, and Rolling Stone and not merely brief mentions, but full length articles. Many of these references have been incorporated into the article. The article quality is decent in terms of grammar and substantive content of his extensive career in entertainment, as an author, actor, Emmy Award winner, etc. I carefully read the criteria for inclusion in Recent Deaths for ITN. I realize neither of the following two are included as criteria, but want to bring them to your attention nevertheless. First, compare the ITN entries for today and the article page views associated with each person. Recent deaths are Louis Gigante, Bettye Crutcher, Gus Stavros, Dietrich Mateschitz, Pablo Eisenberg, Lucy Simon. Xi Jin-Ping is ITN (very much alive). The recent deaths articles have about 10,000 page views each at most. (I glanced at the first two, which have minimal content or sources). Chairman Xi received 150,000 page views after the dramatic public removal of his predecessor. Leslie Jordan's biography has already received 1,034,000 page views without even appearing in ITN. Clearly, Leslie Jordan's passing is of interest to many people. Second: Look at this outpouring of attention and regard his death received on Twitter today. The video was viewed 3 million times which is more than most videos of major world events. (I am NOT a fan of Yasher Ali but please ignore who posted it; the content is what matters). Finally, Jordan's death was sudden, due to a car crash, which IS one of the criteria for inclusion.--FeralOink (talk) 10:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @FeralOink: Thanks for your input. Regarding recent death postings, the only consideration is the quality of the article. The other factors you mentioned, even if true, have no bearing on postings. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * good analysis, but what's important here is the quality of the article. The rest, as long as he has a Wiki article, is not discussed. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is now well-sourced. Vida0007 (talk) 11:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose inline citations have been blindly added to the the filmography with zero consideration as to whether the sources cover that information.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Now satisfactory. ?  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Article is now well-sourced and is good  4me689  (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced, good for RD, generally well written. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  16:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Per filmography sourcing issue raised by GreatCaesarsGhost above at 01:25, 25 October 2022. Someone seems to blindly have added the same two sources for every entry, but some fail verification with those citations.  I've tagged a few to start.  The tagged failures need resolving, and generally the section needs to be vetted out further, not just eyeballing for the presence of citations.—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reconciled from TVG and BFI and removed the improper citations.   GreatCaesarsGhost   17:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck my oppose. Passes eyeball test, though I'm not able to vet the changes at this point. AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) St. Louis school shooting

 * Oppose - Tragically routine crime. Some additional notes on the blurbs: The first one doesn't mention the city, and the second one doesn't mention the state or country. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is normal in the United States. <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 18:10, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose "tragically routine" sums it up quite well. Two victims and stopped after a few minutes, this does not meet the significance threshold for an ITN posting. The update is also insufficent; just one line at present.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * oppose I have not heard of this.  4me689  (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above - I think the fact the event doesn't even have an article is pretty indicative of the fact it doesn't belong on the main page. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election, Rishi Sunak

 * Support Wait Ready to be posted on the ITN. until a new leader of Conservative Party becomes Prime Minister. HurricaneEdgar    13:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until he actually becomes PM, and combine the blurb with Truss' resignation. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait Agree with Thryduulf; the ITN/R is taking over as PM, not winning the Conservative Party leadership.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until Rishi becomes PM, then post and pull Truss's resignation. Altblurb2 added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait -- and pull the old blurb once we post this. Don't need two blurbs about the same election. This isn't UKpedia. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  13:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Happy to leave this as it is for now and wait until tomorrow (when he is set to formally become PM) if that is the general consensus. Alt blurb 2 looks good to me.  XxLuckyCxX (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait – Per previous posts. SOP here. – Sca (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think Altblurb 2 is misleading as Penny Mordaunt launched a campaign to be PM instead of him, she just dropped out before the first round of voting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The main article is saying that Sunak stood unopposed so we should go by that, I think XxLuckyCxX (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * She dropped out, so there was no opponent at the end of the day. Simply saying he was elected implies that party members (or party MPs) elected him, while in reality he was the only candidate when the running window closed. Regards. Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post alt 2 as soon as quality permits. It is being reported that he was chosen, we don't wait for the formal declaration of a winner or assumption of office. Should the groundbreaking aspect of his selection be mentioned? 331dot (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll probably get similar complaints to the Truss "shortest-serving PM", that it makes the blurb too long.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In this type of situation, prudence dictates waiting 'til it's official. Not a news ticker, etc. -- Sca (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not supported by any policy. We typically post when the media declares a winner, not based on formalities like certification/inauguration/assumption of office. If this shouldn't be ITNR, or ITNR should be changed to specify when the elected official takes office, the talk page is thataway. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its supported by common sense. If this turnover is going to happen in a few days. Rather than months, we should wait until the transition. M asem (t) 16:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The announcement of the winner always gets more attention than the formal assumption of office. No reason to not post that he will succeed her now. I apologize for my frankness but I'm kinda amazed there is even disagreement about this. This used to be what we did all the time. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Until Truss officially resigns, then combine blurb with Truss resignation per all above. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  14:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Noting the discussion below as to whether Xi Jinping was elected, do reliable sources say Sunak was elected? The ones given in this nomination do not, so far as I can see. Was he not chosen, selected or nominated? Thincat (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Most reliable sources would be quoting Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee, who stated “I can confirm that we have one valid nomination, and Rishi Sunak is elected as leader of the Conservative party.” rawmustard (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC quote Brady (and Sunak himself) as saying Sunak was elected but the BBC and the other two sources seem to avoid using the word in their own voices (probably deliberately?). Thincat (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In 2007, under similar circumstances, we said "Gordon Brown succeeds Tony Blair as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". Thincat (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hilarious seeing the difference between the two discussions on this. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until after Sunak has met the king. And I broadly Support Alt2, although I would prefer 'chosen' or 'selected' rather than 'elected', for the same reasons as in my similar vote regarding Xi Jinping below. This headline should replace the existing one about Liz Truss. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this suggestion too. Vida0007 (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Drop the Truss blurb entirely, replacing it with something like Rishi Sunak is selected as Leader of the Conservative Party, becoming the first non-white Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Also dont need to make it "official", we post when its known. Truss shouldnt havent been blurbed at all either, the fetishization of all things British here though likely demanded that it was. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait till he met King Charles.
 * Mikelolggmrox (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As per above, first of all Wait, then Replace the posted Truss blurb with Alt4 by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support for alt III or IV after he has kissed hands. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the term "elected" there was no election of any kind. He got letters of support from MPs but it was not a vote; it's akin to a recommendation letter. Besides he was unopposed. It is worrying when democratic norms have taken such a battering we cannot tell apart what is and isn't an election. But this isn't even quasi-election. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment but the article involved is titled in part "leadership election". 331dot (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * but this article was created when it was presumed there would be some kind of voting mechanism as there were to be 2 or 3 contenders, and this was the case until the very last minute. I would support if it was renamed to "contest", "nomination" or "selection", that would be more accurate. The outcome ultimately is though, that no election took place of any sort. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I hasten to add, this is all pretty controversial and a sensitive subject; it was when Truss was voted in only by a handful of MPs and then party members, this is much more tense with all the opposition parties and most of the electorate wanting a general election. I fear calling this an "election" would not only be inaccurate, but also may impede neutrality. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think ALT2 is decent. "Elected unopposed" seems to be the best way to describe it, and we shouldn't add extra editorialisation fluff such as "the first non-white", per prior convention. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Did we really not note Obama was the first Black president? Or is this not as big a deal in the UK as it was in the US? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that comparison is worthwhile. ITN in the range of November 2008 - January 2009 was a different place than it is now. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until Rishi becomes PM  4me689  (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait He becomes PM tomorrow, wait until then. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support immediate posting of Blurb. If it waits, then Altblurb 2. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever blurb is posted, it should mention that Sunak will be the UK's first South Asian/Indian/non-white/Hindu Prime Minister, however it best be mentioned/worded. I agree on waiting until he becomes PM. -TenorTwelve (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait and Propose ALT5 Don't post until he formally becomes PM, but I propose ALT5 with some minor wording changes. The Kip (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with comments above that the hook should mention the rather important point that he is the first non-white PM in the history of the country. BD2412  T 23:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but use Altblurb4 after Truss resigns to the King and Sunak is informed to create government - TheCorriynial (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb 5 It seems like the best description of what happened. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment While Sunak's identity as the first UK prime minister who is visibly of minority status is interesting, I don't think it's the headline, and (as my choice of words there shows) it's hard to express exactly what kind of precedent it is - the UK has already had two mixed-race prime ministers, one Jewish one, and at least one whose first language wasn't English. Let's stick to the main issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with you that his ethnicity shouldn't be mentioned here but Disraeli was white just like David Lloyd George. I don't see how ashkenazis and welsh can be considered "mixed-raced". Varoon2542 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, those list items don't overlap. Lord Liverpool had Anglo-Indian ancestry, Boris Johnson's great grandfather was Turkish, Disraeli was Jewish, and Lloyd George spoke Welsh as his first language. All of them were white, but all of them have things about them that slightly complicate broad-brush statements about 'ethnic minority'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted, replacing the Truss blurb, given that Sunak is now being appointed by the king.  Sandstein   10:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt4, keep it simple.
 * – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait until after Truss resigned officially and Rishi officially becomes Prime Minister, then combine blurb with the one about Truss resigning. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It already happened and is posted. Did this !vote jump through a quantum tunnel from yesterday or something? Time stamp is all wrong for it though... Ghost Stalker  (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Beryl Benacerraf

 * Unfortunately this appears stale, as her death was reported in The Boston Globe on October 10. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Arshad Sharif

 * Oppose until the citations are worked on and the tag is removed. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with this, but apparently this needs some reorganization since this article is not really about him. MarioJump83 (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Shot by police in Kenya, apparently mistakenly. Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Question is the story here not the shooting? In which case it should be a blurb, after the orange tag is resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was very likely an accidental shooting would seem to lessen its significance, though. -- Sca (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - All cited Sherenk1 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The personal life section is mostly not about him, and what is belongs in the career section (and should definitely not begin in the middle with a sentence fragment starting "Also"). Remove the information about his relatives and half the article is about his death and the reaction to it. Either this should be an article about his death with background about his life, a biography of his life with a proportionally short section about his death, or an article about him, his father and his brother. It currently doesn't know what it wants to be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Kenyan police have apologized. – Sca (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Amou Haji

 * Oppose stub. The list of sources and references is longer than the prose, a third of which is a see-also to a different person. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by different person? Do you mean you think that those sources are seferring to someone other than Amou Haji? Gazozlu (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * About a fifth of the prose refers to Dirty Dick and his corpse bride. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * O yeah, not the sources. Should be fine? Gazozlu (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The expansion is fine, thanks, but sentences like He was repeatedly immortalised smoking a cigarette five or six times and refusing water, food and basic necessities offered to him lack greater meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * O yeah, there's some weird stuff in the article that maybe shouldn't be included or should be reworded. Everybody is adding things here and there so it doesn't seem worth it for anybody to copy-edit/organise the article just yet. Gazozlu (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no maybe about it. As an encyclopedia, we simply cannot (in good conscience) perpetuate this notion that cigarettes cause repeated immortality in the recently deceased (even during their filthy lifetimes). I'm sorry for edit conflicting you, but that's just how recent death editing goes sometimes; we're like vultures, spiraling blindly into another, eyes on some intangible prize for getting our points across first. It's unfortunate, but I think the buzzing has settled enough here for you to try reinterpreting that part into something more logical. I only read English and French, so if you won't, all I can offer is deletion (which might be a shame, since it does seem vaguely interesting). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the editor who added that part btw. Gazozlu (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like an Italian speaking editor added that part. Gazozlu (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In-fact actually that editor is Gazozlu (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah sorry, as I'm Italian I have the bad abitude to only read Italian sources. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 11:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what is not understood on that sentence. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 11:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the use of the concept of being immortalised, (to be immortalised), is unclear. In what way was he immortalised. For example, it could say:
 * He was immortalised while smoking through the photographs taken of him in an IRNA report. Gazozlu (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just changed "repeatedly immortalised" to "photographed". Now that it's mentioned, it does kind of make sense, in the superstitious sense of a camera "capturing" one's soul. A bit surprised to hear it from a doctor, but all good; Weak Support. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That "photographic immortality" was just an example of a way that they could have meant it, however it is unlikely that that is what they actually meant. Gazozlu (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the only remotely plausible explanation insinuated so far, but I guess there's no harm in asking if we are indeed talking about five or six pictures. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think he might mean photographed smoking 5 or 6 cigarettes at a time. Not photographed smoking 5 or 6 times. As shown in this historic photo which I added to the article. But still will be helful if can confirm.Gazozlu (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The source confirms what I say, although implausible. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 21:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, then it's unreliable, since someone immortalized even once will never die. Someone photographed, sure, one day. I'll leave it to you two to decide between five or six times or five or six cigarettes, for whatever good knowing is. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robert Gordy

 * Support. All looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Libor Pešek

 * Posted Stephen 23:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walt Corey

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Vanilla Beane

 * Support Nice job on a brand new article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Galina Pisarenko

 * Support New article, looks ready to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rock of Gibraltar (horse)

 * Comment the last sentence of the lead could do with some added explanation or links - what does "stood" mean in this context? What is a "shuttle stallion"? Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , lead re-worded with note added explaining shuttle stallion Josey Wales Parley 22:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - appears to be ready to post. --LukeSurlt c 11:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insufficient depth of coverage, does not have the minimum "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" describing the horse's racing career. Example for other horses posted at RD for an idea of comparative quality: War Emblem, Danehill Dancer.  Spencer T• C 19:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Expanded prose to include decriptions of his two seasons of racing Josey Wales Parley 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the Pedigree section needs a citation, but it's good to go once that is fixed. The note in the lead isn't formatted properly as I'm not getting a back link from it, but I've not looked into why - this issue is not one that should preclude posting. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * References requested provided now Josey Wales Parley 12:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Leszek Engelking

 * Oppose - needs referencing improvement and general clean up. - Indefensible (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * man, there is not enough replys, getting more people, , , , , and can you guys put your opinions, you don't have to but we'll need more replys here.  4me689  (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Need more referencing; some {CN} tags are already in place. Also, the paragraphs should not read like a CV re-formatted into long sentences. -- PFHLai (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment added some things, did a bit of clean-up, fixed citations. The problem is the sheer amount of stuff this man has published is incredible, and it makes it actually quite difficult to clean-up the article as a result. Just the "works" elements (which I now have split into sub-sections) now needs a re-write and all the ISBN's put into cite book templates. Anyone has any ideas please just go ahead! Abcmaxx (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose still far too much unsourced to post. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thryduulf I sourced most of it. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - it’s all sourced now. Still may require some clean up. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Pan Engelking seems to have been very widely known in Poland. Interesting bio. – Sca (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: At this point mostly a CV in prose format that needs some depth. What themes and topics did he write about as a poet/novelist? The lede mentions he was a literary critic as well as a philologist but this does not appear to be mentioned elsewhere in the article.  Spencer T• C 18:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Louis Gigante

 * Support A little on the short side, but well-sourced and holistic enough for our purposes. What a rollercoaster of a career. Curbon7 (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are {cn} tags for a couple of details about his family. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 10:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done. They were already sourced to the NYT obit at the end of the paragraph before the IP decided to tag-bomb. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, Bloom6132. I added a couple, too. It looks like the IP moved the sentences to the right place where the footnote is but forgot to remove the tag. Anyway, it's alright now. --PFHLai (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Xi Jinping's third term

 * Support - it is a significant election result—with respect to succession norms—for the largest nation on the planet. Ayyydoc (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – it's significant given the prior stipulation of a two-term limit 675930s (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb 1 - New Altblurb looks good. Yxuibs (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb 1 - New Altblurb looks good. Yxuibs (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Significant event. Altblurb and image added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 06:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs updates! The Congress article contains several statements such as "is expected" and little content on actual outcomes. --Tone 09:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - "Not an election" is not a reason for not at blurb this time because he broke all the previous rules of CCP for his own power this time. But I do think that the word "elects" should be changed because in no way he is really elected. <font color="#FF0000" face="Old English Text MT" style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px #cccccc;">Mahogany115 (<font  style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px #cccccc;">Message ) 12:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The blurb doesn't say he was elected by the people - it clearly mentions that he was chosen by the CCP Congress, which is what happened. This being (or not being) a rubberstamp body is another issue. Regards. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb, a significant event, particularly since a third term for the General Secretary represents a break with tradition. The original blurb is a no go: The terms "elected" and "leader" are too vague and easily misinterpreted. Nsk92 (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Comment Oppose – From what I've seen, third term was expected all along. . Significance/impact faint. – Sca (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is equivalent to being re-elected to the presidency of the US, which is significant. I don't think that the election being rigged is an argument here. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Political theater by an entrenched party pol. -- Sca (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They've gone from decades of power sharing amongst the elite to basically one man rule. That's a fairly significant shift. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC
 * They didn't 'go' to that at this pre-choreographed congress. In effect for some years. News value nil. -- Sca (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt-blurb - It's definitely a dictatorial stitch-up (and bolding the congress will also direct people to read about how Hu Jintao was treated), but this is the mechanism by which the world's most populous nation currently selects its leader, and the selection of Xi Jinping for a third term - which only Mao Zedong had previously had - is clearly significant and worthy of a headline. We report on democracies, we report on monarchies, we should clearly report on this. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What changes for the people of the world's most populous country as a result of this congress? -- Sca (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We'd still post the win of an incumbent president in a national election, even if that doesn't change how the country's ruled. ITN is not a place to RGW. M asem  (t) 13:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Masem. What changes for the people of America if Biden is re-elected in 2024? We'd still blurb it, so why not this? Quantum XYZ (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring that the U.S. president is elected in a genuine vote by the population. (But don't get me started on the #!$+*%¿ Electoral College.) -- Sca (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, we're not here to RGW. If there is significant political commentary about the fakeness of the election it should be covered on the target article, but ITN should not care about that. M asem (t) 14:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If? – Sca (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Not trying to 'right a great wrong.' Just trying to ignore it -- or to ignore meaningless political theater that isn't really even newsworthy. Yawn... -- Sca (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - significant political event in the world’s most populous country, rightly considered comparable to the re-election of a president in a democratic republic. Blurb needs to be carefully worded and wikilinked considering that the “leadership” of China is not explicitly associated with any one particular official title.
 * Who posted? – Sca (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, It is a significant event in the political arena. Alex-h (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support A third term for the leader of China for the first time since Mao is a significant development. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Whether it fits our picture of a representative democracy in a land of milk and honey is immaterial. It's a willy-nilly silly old re-election, yes, but it is still a re-election of a world leader, and we need to grin and bear it rather than pooh-pooh the outcome. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb + altlurb1 not really an election, more of a show, Xi calls all the shots and used the event to load the executive with yes men. Elections under duress with no checks and balances are not elections by definition. Therefore added altblurb2. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "Xi Jinping stays in power in China." -- Sca (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the definition of the word "election" doesn't stipulate anything about who the electorate can be; or under what conditions they can vote. This, that; and the other are all elections, and none is more so one than another. ✨ <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   21:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * we should be impartial and neutral, which means we shouldn't be whitewashing dictators and call their leadership processes exactly as they are, not use weasel words. "Election" is misleading to describe this and should be avoided. Abcmaxx (talk)
 * the word "Election" is not misleading, since it was an election; even if the outcome was never in doubt given what the electorate was. Saying "elected by the Chinese Communist Party national congress" isnt whitewashing anything, thats exactly what has happened; it wasnt the Chinese public that elected him. The onus is not on us to put our own definition to what an election is. To suggest Elections under duress with no checks and balances are not elections by definition. is adding your bias to what an election should be. That being said, to suggest that there are no checks and balances within the CCP and that this election was conducted under duress is also questionable.... Sure the electorate was going to be stacked with CCP loyalists, but I dont think they were under any duress to vote for Xi. ✨ <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   23:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * an election where the outcome was never in doubt is a staged/sham election by definition. And I disagree I am throwing my bias' here, I am just merely pointing out the realities of Chinese politics. Yes one could vote against Xi, but that would be the end of their political (and probably any other too) career; that is duress. We didn't call Xinjiang internment camps "vocational schools" which is what they officially called. Also there are no checks and balances, are there? The only "check" is whether you are loyal to Xi and the CCP and the "balance" is that 2980 out of 2980 seats are pro-government. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Abcmaxx. While we aren't here to right great wrongs, I feel this is a case where we shouldn't use term "elected". I'm not sure what the proper term to use is, but "anointed" feels proper. "Chooses" seems to be a good compromise nonetheless. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ALT 1. Happy for "chooses" to be substituted for "elects" in that blurb. Significant as any top level election of the world's superpowers.  Schwede 66  18:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Altblurb  it's probably the best worded in my opinion.  4me689  (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, It is a significant event in history of China for a leader to be "elected" three times in a row, the CCP had never, since Mao, elected a leader more times than two, blurb seems good to go. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Through Socialism with Chinese characteristics, China has eradicated poverty, homelessness and illiteracy. The capitalists are represented through the party to keep them from being compradors, and are kept in line, with Xi Jinping thought now nationalizing and controlling the private rapidly. The genius of Deng's theory is keeping the dictatorship of the workers while also using the benefits of global capitalism to build the revolution. America's fate was sealed when Deng inherited a broken China and built it into a superpower. LONG LIVE DENG XIAOPING THOUGHT! LONG LIVE CHINA! Buck3983 (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support on significance. He leads the most populous country on earth; how is a term extension not newsworthy? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support anything but blurb nom as that doesn't mention the NCCCP (the thing that's in the news). Very exciting event: XJP secures his reign as Paramount leader, growing closer to Mao; protests in Beijing without any incidents; XJP gave a long monologue on Hu Jintao's leadership and immediately proceeded to purge him; etc etc. <span style="color:#c60;font-family:Papyrus,fantasy">lol1VNIO &NoBreak;👻 ( I made a mistake?  talk to me ) 19:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - an dictator continues to rule. No big news, but support on overall significance.BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Vanamonde93. Jusdafax (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support notability and article(s') quality but Oppose the word "election" in blurb(s) as per my previous comments. Added altblurb3 further to previous comments. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb I don't know why you all want to complicate things so much, really. Besides, the quality of the two articles is good. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT 1 Whether you like it or not, this was still technically an election. I don't see any of the "oppose" !votes giving a solid reason why we should not post. This is a story of global importance given China's standing on the world stage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * he's also technically a dictator, but I'm sceptical about "elected dictator" would get consensus. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The National Congress article has not been updated with the actual outcomes Stephen 22:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose bolding 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party on quality No update on Xi's outcome. Additional problems include wrong verb tenses on past event, too much "reported", "speculation", etc. in prose.—Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 The best of the blurbs, as it covers all the bases (i.e. clarifying it wasn't a general election and this was a party function). Curbon7 (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Xi Jinping was not elected to a 3rd term by the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party but rather by the 20th Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party which followed it a day later. - Indefensible (talk) 04:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt1 significant event, alt blurb 1 is the best imo, although wouldn't mind if chooses was used instead of elects. echidnaLives  -  talk  - edits   04:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree - I would prefer selects or chooses, rather than elects. On another note, I am concerned by Sca's unusual fervour in trying to shout down this nomination. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Alt4, offered above by the alleged shouter. -- Sca (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty good - thank you. Support Alt4. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support alt1 as the best of the blurbs (I would also be happy with 'appoints' instead of 'elects'). The congress article still has an orange-level tag, but Xi's looks fine so we could use that as the only bold link. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Posted Alt 1 with the variation "chooses", as apparently the most-supported option. Discussion whether the more concise Alt 4 would be preferable can continue.  Sandstein   15:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt4's "confirms" is closer to the reality. As often noted, this was all pre-planned. -- Sca (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt4, as the best terminology for a Kangaroo election, and per my comment above. -
 * Reported error. He was not elected (or selected) by the party congress, but rather the 1st plenum of the 20th Central Committee, an entirely distinct body that meets only after the conclusion of the congress. Also easier to just use the term "Named" as it's basically neutral and avoids having value-judgment laden discussions around the term "elected" or "chosen". Colipon+ (Talk) 22:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Current blurb using "is named" is a good solution. Thanks to whomever. -- Sca (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rodney Graham

 * Posted Stephen 08:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pablo Eisenberg

 * Support. Some awkward phrasing in the lead but not enough to worry about. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dietrich Mateschitz

 * Oppose. The Personal life section looks OK, but the Sports section needs significantly more sources. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article is definitely significant enough and well sourced enough to go in the RD section. --Chrill (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently six explicit CN tags. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article has multiple citation needed tags. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No more CN tags remaining. --PFHLai (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, as said by Chrill above.Horcoff (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Josephine Melville

 * Oppose – Stub. – Sca (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Needs a lot of expansion and the filmography needs sourcing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on, folks. Please don't be wet blankets too quickly! This stub is not even half a day old. Let it grow... Let it grow... --PFHLai (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unsee growth. -- Sca (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a stub. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still a stub on its 4th day since article creation. Filmography still unsourced. Please expand this stub and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Giorgia Meloni sworn as PM

 * Support Notable event, first female prime minister and first prime minister who have roots in a far right party. Yxuibs (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Closed)_Aftermath_of_Italian_General_Election 5.151.106.4 (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Meloni becomes Italian PM

 * Oppose Not a significant development beyond what we already posted. For comparison, we post the result of POTUS election in November but not the inauguration in January. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Quite Ready The three tables at the bottom need a clear source. Otherwise, the article is in good shape. [Noting that changes in government are ITNR.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we posted it in September. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle  - per discussion at WT:ITN, this shouldn't IMHO have been closed (twice) - the situation is exactly the same as the Sweden election, in which there wasn't a firm PM known at the time of the results being announced, and the update from the past few days is that that PM has been confirmed to be Meloni. Note that the election blurb initially mentioned Meloni, without explaining why she might be significant... and then that image and the mention of Meloni was removed later in the day, which may have been motivated by the fact that we didn't know Meloni would be PM at that time. Which is pretty much identical to the Swedish situation. So as a change in leadership which hasn't been posted before, I think this qualifies for ITN/R. Per Ad Orientem, the three tables need referencing, then it's good to go, unless there's something wrong in my reasoning! Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You have re-opened the wrong nomination. Meloni has already taken over as the new PM of Italy, so both the header of this nom ("Aftermath ...") and the blurb are obsolete. There was a nom from Oct 22 ("Giorgia Meloni sworn as PM") that is more appropriate for re-opening. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, but let's not make this situation anymore confusing than it is already.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I asked about this at WT:ITN and the view seemed to be that this was the legitimate original nom, while the other one was closed as a duplicate. Anyway, I've amended the header above and proposed an alt blurb which describes the latest newsworthy development. Also labelled it ITNR, although others may differ on that... Nobody has responded to my points yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I have fixed the three table references so I think this one is good to go now. Upgrading to full support. I'll mark as ATTENTION NEEDED in the hope it gets some eyeballs. Would be good to get more opinions on whether it actually merits posting. As noted, I think it's basically the same situation as Sweden, but others' mileage may vary. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support on significance: the outcome wasn't obvious after the election, depending as it did on coalition machinations, and as such this is newsworthy. I do not have time to evaluate the article in detail at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I'm supportive of posting more blurbs, and I see this as a common-sense one. Significant, in good shape, and double-posting isn't really an issue (RE: Sweden). Curbon7 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gus Stavros

 * Support Article is well-sourced. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good shape. Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Bolla

 * Support. Good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harry White (jockey)

 * Support Good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Schjeldahl

 * Support. Some more dates in the personal life section would be good if you can find them, but that's not enough to hold up posting. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election

 * Strong oppose Change of PM is ITN/R. We'll post that as a blurb and do not need to go full UKpedia with ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per above; only the result needs posting. rawmustard (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we're already pretty much set in for the resignation and new PM items, we don't need this as well.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Given that we blurbed Truss' resignation and will blurb her successor there is nothing to be gained from having this on ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Support adding to ongoing. Major event in G7 country currently in deep government crisis. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose given that we will likly blurb her sucessor, it is unecessary. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 19:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: May Blood, Baroness Blood

 * Support. A little light on details, but good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's fine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose does not look notable.  4me689  (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't think the subject is notable, then nominate the article at AfD. Per the instructions above, any person who has an individual article and who has recently died are notable enough to appear on RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR. 107.127.49.7 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way will ignoring this rule benefit the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides the fact that notability is besides the point for RD, the subject is clearly and obviously notable via WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - clearly notable. Article looks good to me.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I fixed one cn tag, looks ok. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Blanche Lemco van Ginkel

 * About 5 {cn} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done. Please have a another look. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 -- PFHLai (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bettye Crutcher

 * Support. Short but good enough. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucy Simon

 * Support Article is ready for RD. Quality is good, suitable but not necessarily outstanding. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  17:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Reasonably comprehensive and fully sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Indonesian liquid medicine ban

 * Support – Major tragedy, great example of Wikipedia coverage. Not sure if the mass death or the material ban is the topic of this ITN, but the article looks fit for featuring. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Half a week later and the article still doesn't have any more details on what happened, it does feel rather weak. I'd rather switch to neutral. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I suspect the ban just covers oral, syrupy medicines rather than everything that comes in liquid form, such as vaccines and eye-drops. The Indonesian language article says "Larangan juga ditujukan kepada tenaga kesehatan untuk tidak tidak meresepkan obat-obatan berbentuk sirup." (The prohibition is also aimed at health workers not to not prescribe drugs in the form of syrup.)  So perhaps we should use the word syrup rather than liquid. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as it's a tragic event with an immediate response. This is a very good example of what should be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The target article contains only three lines of text in total about toxic cough syrup in Indonesia and only a single sentence about the ban. We need more information to post on the main page; as essentially the target article has functionally no additional information beyond what the blurb says.  That's not acceptable.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The target article contains very little information about this event, and expanding it much further in that article would add undue weight to the article on toxic cough syrup.4meter4 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, It has enough information for ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the target article has very very little about this specific event. --M asem (t) 16:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The event is definitely notable enough, but the article needs more information about what's happened in Indonesia. echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  11:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quality is not there. Perhaps a separate article on the Indonesia incident would be preferable? Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Haitian crisis

 * Oppose A protracted four year long event is not good for ongoing. There needs to be a well definition event to make appropriate for main page M asem (t) 18:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose but of course if there is a military intervention from the UNSC, that would almost certainly warrant posting. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  20:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for needing updates. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Masem, though if there is UN intervention, this should be posted. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I great appreciate the work you put in to bring this article much more up-to-date. As it stands right now, I don't think it's suitable for ITN per above, but if there were a high-quality article specifically about the blockade, that might've worked well within our system. Of course, actual international intervention will likely also make the topic qualify better, as long as the article remains up-to-date. Thank you for the nomination ^_^ ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mable. -- Sca (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The United Nations has now unanimously voted to impose sanctions on Haiti. I have split the information regarding the current state of the country into its own article, 2022 Haitian crisis. Forgive me for not knowing how to properly proceed here: should I update the above proposal to reflect these changes, or should this discussion be closed, and a new proposal be opened? — Matthew  - (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could change the target article to 2022 Haitian crisis. I’ll do it for you. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've updated the blurbs as well to reflect the more recent information. — Matthew  - (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Yeah this is the good stuff. Very nice work on this article; this would be a very good subject to feature on ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem, Walt. Complex, ongoing domestic turmoil. Murky. – Sca (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support AltI. Yes it is a domestic situation, but it's a pretty dire one that's drawing serious international attention. US and Mexico considering sending troops now. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * U.S. sent supplies, vehicles. -- Sca (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT1 There's been a lot of talk recently on the talk page of posting more blurbs. If we're heading in that direction, this seems like a common-sense one to me. Curbon7 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Liz Truss resignation

 * Support Alt1. BilledMammal (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Just as I was writing my 'Oppose' vote for the other nomination, this gets announced.
 * This is huge news, a massive leadership crisis in a major power. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support seems good to me. - 125.59.140.165 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This nomination and the one immediately below should be merged as they are basically the same story. Never mind, I see the government crisis one is an Ongoing nom. But I think a blurb would be preferable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, with preference to alt 1 as simpler. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 12:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support and add Truss' image like we did with Johnson (if I remember correctly). Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the norm for every other country in the world to post when the new PM comes in? —Cryptic 12:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case though we have the "short-serving ever" angle. On the other hand, there should be a replacement within the week so it may be worth waiting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Prime Minister should be capitalised Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Only before her name. -- Sca (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with preference to main blurb. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once successor is appointed Alt1. Huge news coming out of the UK. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support main blurb <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#FF8C00; text-shadow:skyblue 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-weight:bold">Kpddg   (talk)  13:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Making him shortest-serving prime minister in British history.  HurricaneEdgar    13:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * HurricaneEdgar, "her".<span id="Nythar:1666271715918:WikipediaFTTCLNIn_the_news/Candidates" class="FTTCmt"> — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 13:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but prefer alt 1 as shorter and less pointed. Ceoil (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support With Image replacing Swedish Prime Minister. Frzzl (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Notable. Nythar  (💬-🎃) 13:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for congruence I still think that resignations of heads of government or state (except abdications of monarchs) shouldn't be included in Main Page until a new successor is appointed. But since Johnson's resignation was posted, it's not common sense to do the opposite this time. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Massively covered. No. 1 news story today. Favor Alt3. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Massive News coming out of the UK. I have a preference for Blurb 1. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - major story and historic significance given how short tenure is BeaujolaisFortune (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I object to the "Ready" tag. This nomination is half an hour old and we should wait for more opinions. Rushed postings have been controversial in the past.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But this has lots of precedent, no? I say the sooner the better for events like these 2A00:23C8:B03:9F01:D12B:34D:4EDD:24C0 (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1 Tetizeraz  -  (talk page)  13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe mentioning October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis in the blurb is preferable because this is no ordinary resignation and what caused her resignation directly. And may well cause the next one in a few weeks time. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Nice. Davey2116 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready ready ready, post post post.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  13:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support The Daily Star's lettuce wins This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support original blurb The Kip (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Back in July, almost everyone was clamoring to get Johnson's resignation posted as soon as possible. Then, 2 weeks later, Mario Draghi resigned which was nominated for ITN. Suddenly, people were less enthusiastic, garnering comments such as: "UK Prime Ministers tend to resign less often than Italian ones", "Our standard practice is to post the change, not the resignation", "Wait until replacement is announced", and "Johnson is a bit of a different process. The UK government itself is stable". Draghi's resignation stayed open and was never posted. Now, not even 2 months later, another UK prime minister resigned and ITNC again can't wait to get it posted. Seems a bit strange to me. YD407OTZ (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because it's true that UK PMs resign far less often than Italian ones, and the UK government is traditionally far more stable. Draghi is the 11th Italian PM since 2000, with Meloni set to become the 12th, and only one (Berlusconi in both terms) having lasted longer than 2ish years in office; in contrast, Truss is #6 for the UK in that same stretch, and her successor will be the seventh, with only Brown and Truss having lasted less than three years in office. Truss' resignation is likewise especially notable considering she's the shortest-serving British PM ever, by a wide margin.
 * In short, it's simply the truth that Italy tends to cycle through PMs far more often than the UK, making it a less notable occurrence. I do think Draghi's should've been posted, however. The Kip (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Global media has an anglosphere bias. It naturally has an effect when determining what is "in the news". Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The current blurb and altblurb are misleading at best, and possibly just plainly incorrect. Liz Truss is the Prime Minister and will remain so until a new leader is appointed. Chrisclear (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * German Wiki's blurb says she announces her intention to – or that she will – resign. (Liz Truss hat ihren Rücktritt als Premierministerin des Vereinigten Königreichs angekündigt . (My emph.) -- Sca (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per YD407OTZ. We cannot continue to treat the UK as a special case if we care about avoiding bias.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Coverage, significance. -- Sca (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because of bias. That's the point.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody was opposing based on coverage or significance when Draghi's resignation was nominated. All the Waits were simply procedural, because of some "standard practice" not to post resignations. Yet this practice does not seem so standard when nominations from the Anglosphere are considered. I don't even oppose this nomination (I'm neutral on it), but we can't pretend to care about unwritten rules for some nominations, and then start talking about "exceptions" for others. YD407OTZ (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will only say that this blurb has the additional hook of her tenure being the shortest ever for UK prime ministers. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If she's been to the king, she has effectively resigned and will be replaced. -- Sca (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Picture in the works. First blurb seems to have agreement. The blurb is correct because she has announced her resignation, not carried it out. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note The link to October 2022 United Kingdom government crisis takes to a redirect to Premiership of Liz Truss. Does this need changing? ISD (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That bold redirect by an editor does not appear to have consensus; it will probably be reverted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note What has been posted has two factual errors. She has not yet resigned as prime minister, just as leader of the Conservative Party. They will now select their new leader, who will become PM in due course. And secondly, it is not certain that she will be the shortest ever, that depends on when the new leader is finally selected. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we're jumping the gun slightly, but it's expected the process of choosing a new leader will take about a week at most, at which point this blurb will almost certainly still be up. She's also going to be the shortest-serving PM unless it somehow drags out by another two and a half months, which is highly unlikely. The Kip (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "announces her resignation" is accurate. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What DeFacto is saying is that she has technically announced her resignation only as Leader of the Conservative Party, not Prime Minister. I don't think the distinction matters, myself. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I love the haste you guys do for UK-related articles. It's a spectacle. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you know? This is Wiki-UK. But in all seriousness, this is the problem with the Westminster System -- nothing stopping them from having 10 prime ministers a year if they can't form a government. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I invite you to nominate other articles from underrepresented areas that are equivalent to this. We can only consider what is nominated. Rightly or wrongly, some countries get more coverage than others in worldwide English-speaking media. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The  becoming the shortest-serving prime minister in British history bit should be excised per WP:CRYSTAL. She is still PM. --LukeSurlt c 14:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * She's got 74 days to go until she wouldn't hold that title, so while it's perhaps a little WP:CRYSTAL, it's also highly, highly unlikely it doesn't prove to be true. The Kip (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In agreement with the 1922 committee, the leadership contest will be quickly held within a week and she will step down at its completion. It is with this in mind that she is being reported a the shortest-serving prime minister. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - although I do think we could have taken a little longer to discuss this before posting. That was hasty, but I don't think it should be pulled. I also think the posted blurb is the right one - Truss' shortness of tenure is absolutely a key part of the story, and we're being told her replacement will definitely be in place by next Friday at the latest, by which time she will still have served less than half the time in office that George Canning, the previous record-holder, did. When that successor is announced, then we should pull this blurb and replace it with the new one. No point having both stories up at once when it's the same underlying event. ETA: I posted this in the wrong place, not realising I wasn't logged in. My apologies, but I now can't post it from my account without linking that publicly to my IP. 2A00:23C6:9E09:1D01:D977:F97F:391C:5506 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Amid a government crisis, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Liz Truss (pictured) announces her resignation, becoming the shortest-serving prime minister in British history.
 * — "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Liz Truss" seems quite unwieldy. Suggest change to "United Kingdom Prime Minister Liz Truss," or even "UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, with "Prime Minister" linked to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. (Every reader of English Wiki who's even halfway literate knows UK stands for United Kingdom.) Also, since "Prime Minister" has already been mentioned, suggest replace second "Prime Minister" with the widely used abbreviation "PM." – Sca (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is called a false title, and is deprecated in British English. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This may be an unpopular position in much of the Anglosphere, but personally I think headlines benefit from the correct use of articles, prepositions, and so on. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This would definitely be a good article to post, I was planning on waiting until the new successor is announced, and then merge the articles, but this seems like it could be news by itself. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt1  4me689  (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Current blurb – Amid a government crisis in the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Liz Truss (pictured) announces her resignation – reads much better. – Sca (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this suggestion. And also, I think it would be best to add the "shortest-serving prime minister in British history" bit after the leadership contest is done. Vida0007 (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This has made front page headlines internationally. All of the blurbs seem fine to me, and I have no strong preference about which one should be featured.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) UK political meltdown

 * Comment Wait until there's actually action to any of the 'major events' that the nominator has proposed is happening. Scotland is pushing towards independence? All talk until a referendum. Currency tanking? Worldwide event. EVERY labor union proposing a strike? We'll see. We have nothing but talk, speculation, rumors, and a politician mad at his own. ITN is not "UK Rumor Hour", it never has, and never will be. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  11:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose What we can't think of is that any government crisis has to be on Main Page. It's usual in every country in the world, and the Italianization of British politics forces us to see this more often. WimePocy is right. Speculation, individual resignations, miscellaneous messes and magnanimous statements mean nothing. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Italianization of British politics is a great descriptor! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The political crisis is very real though, as are the resignations and implications of a dysfunctional government for its inhabitants. I mean the Conservative Party is literally descending into violence amongst each other (The Guardian), (BBC News), (The Independent). Abcmaxx (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the type of day-to-day politics that WP should be staying far away from until the dust settles (summarizing after all is said and done), and in terms of ITN, the only thing we care about is if there's a another revolving door PM. --M asem (t) 12:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Wait - If Truss ends up resigning, or if an election is called, then this can be posted. But as of the moment, this is just a particularily bad episode in UK politics, not ITN-worthy yet.
 * I would keep an eye on what's happening in the UK though. As you said, there are lots of events that could be very notable in the future, like Scottish and Northern Irish secessionist movements, economic crisis, etc. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This aged well. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Truss is now expected to resign per Guardian's liveblog, and that would be blurbworthy in itself once a successor is chosen. rawmustard (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * NOW this can be a blurb, she just announced she's resgining. . --M asem (t) 12:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Truss has resigned, and we'll have a new PM in a week. This is completely unprecedented in British politics. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - We can post the resignation of Truss as we did with Johnson, but a government crisis should not be posted to ongoing per above. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow close See you all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Better as a blurb now Truss has gone. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano)

 * Support. B class article, everything looks good. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, did some copy-editing. Thank you 4meter4, I was afraid I had to do another one when I read that she died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as ready. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Herman (American football)

 * Weak support. It's fine and sourced, but it's almost all stats in prose form. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 360 words of text. -- Sca (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I said in prose form. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it's fine. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jay Owen Light

 * Support Good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. No issues with the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Article quality is fine for RD. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  11:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Per above, article is OK. Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charley Trippi

 * Support Good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support B-class article about someone who seems much more notable than the average American footballer that gets nominated here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. One of the all-time greats, once called by Jim Thorpe "the greatest football player I have ever seen." BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing removal: Mahsa Amini protests

 * Oppose removal It's October 19, and the most recent substantive updates are only 2 days ago. There's at least 2 items from 17 October: Updated death figures from Iran Human Rights, and EU Sanctions issued.  WP:ONGOING has some general rules of thumb for the Ongoing section, and generally "too old" is only if it is older than the oldest blurb; the oldest blurb is definitely older than 2 days old, so this is still being regularly updated by our standards for "regular".  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal from ongoing at this time, per Jayron32. Way too early for the removal. Nsk92 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal - per Jayron32. Having the oldest blurb be the "cutoff" point for an ongoing item seems like a good rule of thumb PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal It is still in the news, way too early for removal. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - no point in removing this right now. Still an ongoing situation.BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ken Kortas

 * Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. No problems with the article. Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harvey Wollman

 * Support Good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is in good condition. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Robert Gordon (singer)

 * Oppose too much uncited material. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's currently not ready, but I started working on citing the material and/or removing content that can't be sourced. I should hopefully be able to get it into good shape in the next 12 hours.4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note the article has been moved from Robert Gordon (musician) to Robert Gordon (singer). It presently has an orange tag for unsourced material. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for citations. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The prose still has a few {cn} tags. Discography still needs sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Valery Rubakov

 * That he mentored multiple others appears to be sourced to the Russian Wikipedia rather than a reliable source, it'll be read for RD. More information about his personal life and death would be good if there is anything in reliable sources, if not the sections should be combined. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf, good spot. I've removed the mentoring bit and combined the last two sections.  Will look to see if I can add anything from current reporting - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. I've fixed the referencing for the Hamburg Prize, it's all good now I think. Thryduulf (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ole Ellefsæter

 * Support. Each of the sections are quite short, but what's there is sufficient and well sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charlie Smithgall

 * Oppose – No article. Snow . – Sca (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on. It was an obvious clerical error. The article exists and is so easy to find. So easy to fix the error, too. --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Be old. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  12:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * support – Referenced and good.BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  I have to ask the question - is a mayor of a town of 58,000 people notable per WP:NPOL? Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well obviously not via WP:NPOL, it would be via WP:GNG; still not sure notability is met. For our purposes, there are a few spots in need of citations. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The subject is most interesting as a cannon collector and expert -- top of that field, it seems. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose . I've just added three CN tags, but it's fine for RD once those are resolved. If you dispute the notability of the subject then nominate the article at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thryduulf, someone had added these sentences since nomination. I've cited them - Dumelow (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, all cited and now ready for posting. Thryduulf (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Horst Metz

 * support – Referenced and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Duncan Jr.

 * Posted Stephen 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Ponti

 * Support. Article is in good shape with no significant gaps in coverage obvious. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine, Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Younoussi Touré

 * Support. Former PMs are notable and article looks notable.VR talk 16:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carmen Callil

 * Support Australian publisher, founded Virago Press, died of leukemia. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Booker prize

 * Oppose Do we typically only bold the book? In The Seven Moons of Maali Almeida, would be good to have an extra sentence or two on why it won, and not just a direct quote from "judges" before the prize was awarded. On a minor point, page suffers from WP:CITEKILL, esp. the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that for the International Booker prize, per itnr, we are to bold the work, the author, and the translator, I'd think for the regular booker we'd want the author and work. M asem (t) 15:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now I think the author's article needs to be beefed up a bit more. Also, correct the spelling to "Sri Lankan" in the blurb e.b. (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now - No need to state what others stated above.BabbaQ (talk) 14:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roberto Rojas

 * Support - Referenced and looks ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks good. thoroughly cited, well organized article. e.b. (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per above. --Bedivere (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Ulf Kristersson becomes PM

 * Support - New Prime minister. Article is updated. The far right aspect is also interesting.BabbaQ (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality This news item is about the head of government being chosen and about the new government being formed as much as the person. However the Tidö Agreement has large parts uncited, is in an awkward format, and there is an ongoing merger proposal. The Ulf Kristersson only very briefly mentions him becoming prime minister, and given the seniority of the role I would expect much more especially as to how he came to be chosen. Article also very short and lacking detail about his political beliefs. Also "Leader of the Moderate Party" surely still counts as part of his biography; which is very much slanted towards party political career. He has also published numerous books and this part of his life is completely missing. Key elements of his businessman career are also missing. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also far right is bias and wrong. See the agreement Page and voting areas. Economically Left (except maybe competitive corporate tax) and urban blue as opposed to globally rural right/conservative. 37.252.80.175 (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To avoid any bias in WP's reporting, it should be said that the new PM is leading a "centre-right bloc". --M asem (t) 02:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit blurbs to which others have responded; I've undone this because it violates WP:TPO. If needed you can propose an alternate blurb (I have no real preference one way or the other). Note that Tidö Agreement is not the nominated article.  Sandstein   07:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Tidö Agreement is very much central to new PM bring chosen, as is the creation of the Kristersson Cabinet. And SD is very much a far-right party, just the other day they had to discipline their own MP for publicly making insulting comments about Anne Frank. It is one of the few major parties still in existence that was openly neo-nazi. We should not be diluting their position just because they are part of a new government. Even as a coalition there is not much "centre" about it, they are pretty deeply entrenched on that wing in many aspects, even if you discount the SD. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , you may not have noticed but this isn’t a talk page. You don’t own the blurb, it’s the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Two editors have opined that the bloc is not far right, nor is that term used in the article.  Stephen 09:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @StephenThis is a talk page in the sense that we are talking on it. And a basic tenet of Wikipedia etiquette is to not alter proposals that others have replied to because it makes it impossible to determine what, if any, proposal has consensus. Please add an alternate blurb if you wish to propose one.  Sandstein   10:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I would very much want to wait for the Kristersson Cabinet article to be further expanded and improved. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment while the Sweden Democrats are widely agreed to be such a party, the blurb calling this a "government backed by the far right" WITHOUT naming any of the three centre-right parties IN the government is undue and borders on clickbait Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, if anything not mentioning it would be biased. The SD is the biggest of the four, and without their backing they would not be in power. It's the first time anyone agreed to work with such an extremist party in Sweden. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They are not extremist Haris920 (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb - New government of a major power in Northern Europe. I would prefer the alt blurb as it is more neutral. The Tidö Agreement page could use a little expansion though. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose "centre-right" label per previous comments. They are a right-wing coalition. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb Per PrecariousWorlds. Twistedaxe (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and proposed AltIII given that the election is the big story here and it serves to avoid any debate over who did or didn't support him (point being is he's the PM and that's the major impact here). DarkSide830 (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Looks adequate, more than 1,500 words. However, the " center -right" label does seem somewhat dubious, and Tidö Agreement means nothing to most readers of English Wiki. Hence, favor Alt4. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Alt II The coalition is a complex deal between several parties and so trying to pin an exact L-R label on it is too controversial and synthetic. The Alt II blurb is best because it highlights the article which has the details of the 60+ page Tidö Agreement.  It's ITN's purpose to help readers find such non-obvious article titles; not to engage in political POV. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate 's steadfast and consistent commitment to WP:NPOV and objectivity throughout Wikipedia. That said, I have to support either Alt 2 or Alt 4. Just avoid the political bent altogether. We can see the politics aspectr for ourselves just by reading the article; hell, anyone can surmise it just from reading the news for the last 2 years.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – What's the holdup? – Sca (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Limited number of admins here. Curbon7 (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 20:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Nigerian flooding

 * Article is not quite up to par for ITN, but I will certainly support this when it is. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Multiple different flooding events over a year, the latest being stale. The individual ones should have been posted if they had significant numbers. The 1,300-some number in the infobox is not supported by the text as well. M asem (t) 12:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Deaths are ongoing, so I'm not sure what date you are using to call this stale. The oldest blurb in the box is 12 days old; hundreds have died in that time. Article quality makes this nomination a non-starter, though.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Both BBC and CNN give over 600 deaths but that is over several months of flooding, not a single event. Flooding happens annually, this year's there being the worst, but there's also similar tolls in other regions like India, China, and where they annually see high death numbers from that. M asem (t) 23:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha; I had not read the linked articles. I've been tracking this with family and friends there, and the very recent active flooding is like nothing they've ever seen. But the reporting even by the best local RSs is about as scattershot as this article .  GreatCaesarsGhost   11:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Not much more than a stub at the moment. The Kip (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is a string of single sentences about death statistics in a few random Nigerian localities. If you want this posted, expand the article into a proper encyclopedia article on the topic.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but the article is not where it needs to be to go on the front page This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing more than a stub. Far too little informaton provided in the article at the moment. Expand it further and I'll support. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Seems a blurb-worthy topic. AlJazeera, BBC say 600+ fatalities, 1.3 million "displaced." – Sca (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But still a mini-stub. -- Sca (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please expand the prose (only 997 characters now). --PFHLai (talk) 04:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Getting stale, and still only 155 words of text. Ain't gonna fly. – Sca (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Made a pass at fleshing out the article. Should be closer to meeting quality standards now. gobonobo  + c 14:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the expansion to 700+ words of prose. --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for a re-review, please. --PFHLai (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am still concerned that there is no real singular event, just that the rest of the world took notice, and the blurb needs to better reflect that. 600 people didn't die recently and suddenly, but over the last several months. --M asem (t) 15:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The flooding has been ongoing since at least August, but saw a surge in September following the release of water from the Lagdo Dam. It seems that global news organizations took notice about a week ago. Another, not-so-singular, yet ongoing event is that 1.4 million people have been displaced from their homes. Would this be more appropriate as ongoing? Floods are expected to continue through November. gobonobo  + c 15:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Better, but still a bit thin for such a big disaster. I'm neutral on posting this version. -- Sca (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A more succinct version of Alt2 needed. -- Sca (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing or blurb. Article is looking quite nice. Still a bit short for such a major event, but I would be happy to see this on ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stale Most recent information from 7 October, too old for posting at this point, over 2 weeks later. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Rollie Seltz

 * Support. Comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 French protests

 * Oppose compared to the level of violence and deaths in the Iranian protests, this is a calm revolt, though has potential to be significant. --M asem (t) 12:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no foreign hands are trying to shape the demonstrations and no one tries to 10000 X the incidents by conducting 'influence operations'.. -- M h hossein   talk 12:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * uh? _-_Alsor (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose protests with no foreseeable significance. Another one farther from the ones that have been included in Main Page. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still more protests are occurring and/or scheduled across the Europe. Maybe we go with the broader article. -- M h hossein   talk 11:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Josef Somr
Support - Referenced. Looks good and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lodewijk van den Berg

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – ditto. The article is in good shape. Hektor (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - referenced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Civiletti

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Dilip Mahalanabis

 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for citations. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Orange tag not yet resolved. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Satya Mohan Joshi

 * Oppose one citation needed in the biography (I've just tagged it) and the entire notable works section is unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , please take a look. I have added references to cite the biography and notable works section. Thanks-- Biplab Anand  ( Talk ) 01:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All works listed in notable works should have a ref or ISBN.  Spencer T• C 03:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * done now.-- Biplab Anand  ( Talk ) 04:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manoj Singh Mandavi

 * Support reasonably comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party

 * Support - Major political event in one of the biggest global powers. This congress in particular may be one of the most consequential in Chinese history. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Question - Is there any precedent on this matter? Did we, for example, post the last congress? Or was it nominated and rejected, or not nominated at all? Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we posted the results of the 2017 congress (here). Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case my !vote would be weak support. I won't usually support an ongoing nomination, only preferring to blurb the results, but this one is more notable per PrecariousWorlds. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "No significant changes to the political or economic system are expected," says AP. -- Sca (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Since China is a single-party autocracy run by Xi Jinping, it seems unlikely that news of general significance will emerge from this pre-planned proceeding. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the last time we posted this, it was due to a leadership change after the Congress was in session. So we can wait for any actual events, and oppose the ongoing. --M asem (t) 14:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If there's news, nominate it as a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith nom, per Sca. It's Stalinist theater. If something significant actually comes from it, that can be handled as an ordinary nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting as ongoing per Sca, but if something significant will be decided on the congress, it can be posted as blurb. Guess I've lost a lot of social rating points now~ a! rado (C✙T) 18:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting as ongoing, as it is just a meeting, but support posting any significant outcomes as their own headline. For my part, this would include the renewal of Xi's premiership for a third term, as he would be the first Chinese Communist leader since Mao to receive a third term. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Muhammad Uzair Shams

 * Oppose Article appears to have severe notability problems (it was just created today), as it is only sourced to a bio on a publishers' website it appears. --M asem (t) 04:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree with Masem, and have orange tagged it as needing independent sources. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-closure comment the article has been moved to Draft space (here). Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tullio Pozzan

 * Comment This could do with a greater variety of sources as it's almost all based solely on the Royal Society's bio. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. My earlier comment hasn't been addressed in any significant way, but what is there is comprehensive and sourced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Marking as attention needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pings to some of the most common ITNRD participants try and get attention . Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * fixing the ping . Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 21:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Evin Prison fire

 * Oppose No reports of fatalities, and appears to be connected to the ongoing riots in Iran, so its covered in ongoing as well. M asem (t) 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do see single-figure digits of deaths in news, but I still believe this is all tied to the ongoing riots. And as noted by PrecariousWorlds below, its still very stubby as to coverage. M asem (t) 15:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If Riker's Island caught fire, I'm not sure there would be much interest in posting that. So if you consider this an equivalent event, even if you factor in the protest element, I'm not sure there's much significance here.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose already covered in ongoing. Shwcz (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose as per above, covered in ongoing. echidnaLives (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Covered in ongoing, and the information on Wikipedia about the fire only consists of a short blurb. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Amasra mine explosion

 * Oppose - Stub, low quality, grammar and structure issues. Prodrummer619 (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality Article is a poorly-written and poorly-formatted stub at the moment. Lack of solidified details about the incident, too. The Kip (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Widely covered; toll of 41 may rise. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality per The Kip. After article issues are sorted, support. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. High enough death toll. Shwcz (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment It's stubby and missing key information such as rescue & recovery efforts. Like Sca said, abundant sources for this article to be expanded. Would be a shame if this isn't posted. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - per Shwcz. Ainty Painty (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article is a stub, and doesn't include vital information. When fixed, easy support. echidnaLives  -  talk  - edits   11:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - per echidna. After article issues are fixed, support. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Muhammad Noor Meskanzai

 * Oppose the entire "Earlier life" section and about half the "Career" section are unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional sourced content has been added, but no citations have been added for what was there already. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No edits to the article since before my previous comment. @Ainty Painty there isn't long left before this is stale if you want to see it on the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Étienne Gaboury

 * Support. C-class article, comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kay Parker

 * Supoprt. Comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mariana Nicolesco

 * Support Good depth of coverage, fully referenced. Marking ready.  Spencer T• C 03:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Katsuya Kitamura

 * Support more about his MMA career and death (if there is anything in RS) would be good, but what's there now is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Per above, better to know the cause of death of a 36 year old person. Alex-h (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Marion Boyd

 * Support. Article is comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robbie Coltrane

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Referencing is quite poor and will require significant improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that there has been some improvement in the article, but as of this comment there still remain too many uncited claims. Not Quite Ready -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - large parts uncited. I hope they do get plenty of fixes as I'm very saddened.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Oh man, that's rough. I don't know how you fix this article up in a week with all the missing citations.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is orange-tagged for citations. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – no longer tagged for citations, though the Career section is tagged as needing updates. –FlyingAce✈hello 04:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - might still need a citation or two plus some more info in the section marked as needing update, but article looks a LOT better, is fully sourced or almost fully sourced. Great actor, long noteworthy career, and article looking good now too. --SitcomyFan (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose article is not good to go. Career section is orange-tagged and narrates his career only up to 2007, although the tables mention television appearances he made up to the current year. The article needs to be polished. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This might be the first time I've seen the Wikipedia community saddened and actually regretful in their oppose votes that a beloved actor potentially doesn't get posted to RD over the vast amount of quality issues. Huge bummer for real! I'm not going to contribute to the oppose votes on emotional grounds, but I genuinely hope this article can be fixed by the community's standards to a point of RD. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Well known as Hagrid in the Harry Potter franchise, as well as other roles. I feel that a few places with no citations should NOT stop this from being a RD. In fact, I think it should be a SPEEDY SUPPORT. Urbanracer34 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is better than it was at the time of his death. It's RD, not TFA. Canuck 89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page  09:09, October 16, 2022 (UTC)
 * Not there yet. It's significantly improved but there are still some missing citations in the prose and tables. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article has been improved and looks fine now. Sahaib (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've added most of the missing citations and moved the three items I couldn't immediately verify to the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support here is a Very notable actor.  4me689  (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James McDivitt

 * Support - rated GA. - Indefensible (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Yurii Kerpatenko

 * Oppose. "Life" section is orange tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Moe Savransky

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Butler

 * Support. If there is anything more than can be said about his personal life that should be added or the sole sentence the section contains should be moved elsewhere in the article but it's good to go as it stands imo. Thryduulf (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. TJMSmith (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Schank

 * Weak support. What's there is fine and referenced, but more prose about his career would be good. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article now has a Career section. — Matthew  - (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 02:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jon Brittenum

 * Support. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 00:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Spender

 * Support. No issues I can see. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Although it's not labelled as such, this is a good article, about one of Australia's more interesting political players. If it helps to get the attention of American and other non-Australian editors here, Spender went to Yale, and married fashion designer Carla Zampatti. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Ben Stevens
Oppose — I'm starting to wonder if you indiscriminately nominate content in "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" fashion. A substantial portion of the article is a WP:COATRACK to either Ted Stevens or Alaska political corruption probe. Any attempts to make it an actual biography of Ben Stevens appear to be purely an afterthought. Adding a fair-use image the day after he died very likely runs seriously afoul of policy. Claiming it's an example of "article quality" merely because it has X number of citations would serve no purpose but to show how out of touch some of you are. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please focus your comments on the wikipage nominated for ITN. --PFHLai (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an "indiscriminate" nomination, but I agree not discriminating enough. I nominated a politician who was the son of a notable politician. Then I trimmed some cruft and seeing it after, I do agree that too much of the content is his being investigated. This would require lots of work to improve to posting and I might not do it. I will note that I did not add the image or claim that this was at all "article quality". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - It looks ok to me. Sourced and overall ready.BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Needs additional information about his legislative career besides the controversy.  Spencer T• C 04:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Could do with additional information per Spencer, but I don't think that's enough to oppose over at this stage. I'll mark this as attention needed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support meh, the article is fine enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Tagged for NPOV concerns when the career section is dominated on a corruption probe for which he was never indicted.—Bagumba (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Sutter

 * There are two bare URLs which need citation templates, and five citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs more citations. The article also has bare URLs. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All uncited text is dealt with. There are no more bare URLs. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeff Barnaby

 * Oppose The lead section is entirely unsourced. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 20:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and that is fine per MOS:LEADCITE. Everything in the lead is sourced in the main body.  The lead does not contain any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or direct quotations.  Hence, this is not a valid reason to oppose. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced, Start Class article Josey Wales Parley 22:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Short but not obviously missing anything and well referenced. Marking ready. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 340 words. -- Sca (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bruce Pairaudeau

 * Support. Article is comprehensive and well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Altaf Ahmad Shah

 * Oppose At 4,001 bytes, the article is essentially a stub. The subject did not have an article prior to their death. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per FAdesdae378 Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's give the nominator some time to work on the wikibio. This is a new nom! --PFHLai (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's 250 words. – Sca (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oddly, it's now down to 120 words. Stub. -- Sca (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Per above,Needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still a stub and no edits at all since the 14th. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bernardo Adam Ferrero

 * Support All looks good to me.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Looks good. Referenced. Good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Many unreferenced works. Stephen 22:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I left only those with a citation and will find citations for more. This needs attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the commented out ones for reference. If they are verifiable, I'm wary of removing them just to get it posted for ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I said I will search. I have RL also. He deserves to be known better and ITN is the way. Too many die these days, I didn't manage for Schidlowsky, and am busy with Ponti. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I rescued a few, but need a break. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I rescued more, and believe we have a decent list. The Spanish National Library has his works but I can't access it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dariusz Raczyński

 * Oppose. One explicit CN in the prose and the honours section has no references. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed please re-evaluate? Abcmaxx (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 22:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Andy Detwiler

 * Posted Stephen 01:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucious Jackson

 * Oppose the career statistics section is entirely unreferenced. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Basketball Reference" link cited in the infobox covers all this. I'm not sure where to place (or how to format) the citation when it covers a whole section like this, though.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One example is Mark_Eaton —Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I did something similar. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Now fully referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Good article. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Allan Wood

 * Support. Article is in good condition. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leon Burton

 * Posted Stephen 22:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Willie Spence

 * Oppose Article is 6,295 bytes long. The subject did not have an article prior to their death. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that is not relevant to whether an article is appropriate to be posted to RD. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is if the newly created article doesn't meet our notability requirements, although of course the place to determine that is at AfD, not here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Notability is borderline, but unless someone nominates it for AfD (I'm not) then its enough for RD. The article is well referenced. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With only 248 words of prose, this is rather stubby. When DYK is asking for 300, ITN-RD shouldn't be too far behind. When compared to the wikibio of recent runner-ups from the same singing contest (Example1, Example2, Example3; of course, we don't compare the death section in this wikibio to the section on post-contest careers in these other wikibios), this wikibio looks less developed. Please expand it. --PFHLai (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose At a minimum, shoud meet DYK's 1500-byte readable prose minimum (currently at 1455)—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Crozier

 * Support - Article seems fine Prodrummer619 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Coaching record and some awards are unreferenced. Stephen 10:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Coaching record is covered by this texternal link at the bottom. As for QHL and MJHL honors from the 1940s and 50s.... I can take a look, but these are not key points. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Found a ref for the honors.  Spencer T• C 02:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Sherrod

 * Posted Stephen 02:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Leonard Kriegel

 * Posted Stephen 02:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted RD) Blurb/RD: Angela Lansbury

 * Support RD, oppose blurb — Notable death, but not in comparison to the other s in ITN. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, weak support blurb; a career spanning eight decades, with massive success in both her native country and in America. Possibly up there with Betty White with how prolific she was. Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb. 75-year career, multiple awards - Oscar, five Tonys, several Golden Globes. She was nominated for Oscar in 1944. Absolute legend, top of several fields. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support either Legend. Also same age as the Queen, but touched my heart in a much more profound way. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:64C7:FF6:3459:2B7E (talk) 19:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, nominee for Oscar means "didn't win". Above average means "no blurb". Abductive  (reasoning) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * She was nominated for the first time in 1944, received Oscar in 2013. It isn't the case of "just above average". She debuted in cinema in 1944 and was active up to recent times, receiving honorary Tony award. Illustrious, long career. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lifetime Oscars and honorary Tonys mean "booby prizes". Really, this effort to get non-blurb-worthy people blurbs is looking more and more WP:POINTY. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We blurbed Sidney Poitier, who got honorary Oscar. How she is not blurb-worthy, being top of the field in both stage, film and TV? Kirill C1 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You could argue that Poitier, as the first major black Hollywood star, was a pioneer in a way that Lansbury was not. Also he didn't win a honorary Oscar, he won Best Actor in 1964. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb. Nearly unprecedented career in length, depth and breadth. Leading presence on stage and screen (big and small alike). Lauded by peers and critics. Widely popular with audiences. Absolute legend. No brainer. Dr Fell (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb Reading through her filmography in Wikipedia reveals a lot of credits, but I don't know if I can fairly judge her for a blurb since I haven't watched anything that features her. Canuck 89 (Chat with me) or visit my user page  20:23, October 11, 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD, but even with her longevity, I can't possibly think her death reaches the significance of a blurb. rawmustard (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb - top of the field of her work. A legend. BabbaQ (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support blurb Terrifically talented and very long, very noteworthy career. --SitcomyFan (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, neutral on blurb Article is GA, no citations tags, looks good for an RD listing. No opinion on blurb. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD and Blurb. Prolific career.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support RD only Long and distinguished career, yes, but not blurb worthy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? Kirill C1 (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we don't just blurb people for long and distinguished acting careers. A blurb isn't some kind of lifetime achievement award. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb else several dozen from the post-WW2 era of Hollywood will get them Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And she started to act before post-WW2 era of Hollywood. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready for RD, weak support on blurb In terms of article quality it appears ready for the front page. In terms of blurb significance I was initially going to oppose, but it's her musical theatre work that really sets her apart: she has more Tony Award for Best Actress in a Musical than any other musical theatre actress in history.  As such I think she has a case. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb here is a case of an actor with a well established Legacy section that is rather lengthy and gives good reason why her passing should be highlighted more than an RD. I know this is not a standard but it drastically helps to have such a section to point to to show why she was important to both Hollywood and Broadway. (Also article quality is good with the basis that her major riles are previously sourced before that list and that while her Kust of appearances is nit well sourced, that was split out of the article at least a year before, and not a "shortcut" to avoid sourcing.) --M asem (t) 21:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and (respectfully) a mark against your advocacy for this standard, as if comes for an actor who is so clearly not the top of her profession.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ….. and if you think Lansbury was not at the top of her profession, then clearly you are mistaken.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * … not even among the 25 greatest female screen legends. We didn’t post a blurb for Lauren Bacall, who is in 18th place on the list, because she was old when she died at 89. Everything is said.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I get that the Wikipedians here are remembering her for her television career or her film career, but I think it's a mistake to not evaluate her for her Broadway career. She's arguably one of the top 3-4 Broadway actresses ever, if not the top. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bacall's article is lacking any type of Legacy section that I would expect to see, making it hard to justify why a blurb would be needed. M asem (t) 02:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We blurbed actors who are not on the list. Lansbury had more Oscar noms than Bacall. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb legitimately shocked to even see the suggestion of a blurb here. As with Lynn, I would ask where she ranks among all living (yesterday) actors? Probably not even top 20.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is blurbing one of the most Golden-globe winning actresses and Oscar winner with a career that spanned 80 years, who has become iconic  shocking? Kirill C1 (talk) 06:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * She never won an Oscar (she was given one), which should tell you something about the Golden Globes, which are widely known to be pure trash.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only – Due mainly to her advanced age, even though she stayed somewhat active in her later years. – Sca (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD, continuing discussion for blurb. Stephen 22:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * RD only – Talent and awards aside, I think she falls short of the transformative criteria for a blurb. Spman (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Were there many film stars and award nominees who were lead actors on TV in 80s? I think she changed the rule that film actor doesn't appear in the long-running series in a lead role. Kirill C1 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb - We can't do this. We can't set the blurb standard to be 'sui generis' and then pivot away from it just for an actor or actress who is beloved. We also don't blurb someone for longevity, unless they happen to be the oldest person on planet Earth (and even then, I think people would still push back on it). We also need to be aware of our systemic bias here; actors comprise the second most posted death entry on ITN, behind sportspeople. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb She was an awesome actor, but not lauded enough in her time, and I'm not seeing enough widespread notice to convince me that she's worthy of a blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don’t see how she was more notable than Lauren Bacall and Olivia de Havilland who didn’t get a blurb (not to mention the male actors such as Kirk Douglas and Christopher Plummer).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing how Betty White got blurbed I don't think we should repeat the mistakes of not blurbing Douglas, Plummer, de Havilland, etc. I think the arguments made to blurb Betty are applicable to Lansbury. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t have even agreed with Betty White getting a blurb. Longevity is one criteria, but I think the main transformative criteria is more important. Did the medium of television change permanently as a result of Betty White, the way it did with Lucille Ball, Jackie Gleason, Mary Tyler Moore, Carol O’Conner, etc.? I don’t think you can argue it did. I’m sure we’ll all be back having this same debate though when Norman Lear passes away Spman (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think those should have been blurbed and don't think that them not getting blurb should count against Lansbury. Otherwise I would point to Dilip Kumar and Betty White, who were less famous and got blurbed. Betty White, in particular, got far less awards recognition. Kirill C1 (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo RD As a man who knows publicity art when he sees it, I'm leaning 1966, but no pressure. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree! A photo RD would be good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Photo RDs aren't a thing at en-wiki, it's been attempted before but reverted, and would. need a rule change agreed by consensus. As an aside, I do wonder if having a photo for one of the RDs could be a permanent feature, that's what they do at French Wikipedia. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In terms of graphics, I don't think it works with an RD. -- Sca (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Blurbing is very rare, and we don't just do it because people have heard of someone. We've done well on this lately, let's not go back. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 06:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 12:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Israeli–Lebanese maritime border dispute

 * Weak Support An important agreement, but not widely covered. <span style="background: #ffcc00; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"> 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦&#124;☎️&#124;📄 20:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment/Weak Oppose For something that's considered a "long running dispute", the main article does not provide background or context to the dispute. In fact almost all of it is about the negotiations. Unless there's expansion for this, the article won't be ready to be posted. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly highly important. I will support this.BabbaQ (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very little importance, this isnt normalizing relations and even that wouldnt merit mention here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is going to be a blurb, and I dont think there should be, it cant be the first one, as there is no agreement with Israel and Lebanon, rather there are two agreed to but not yet signed agreements, one between Israel and the United States and one between Lebanon and the United States. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral I fall into the neutral camp as I see valid cause on both sides here. On one end, this isn't as widely covered as we prefer, but at the other, it is the end of a significant 75 year old dispute. Additionally, as stated, the article is pretty poor at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That 74 year dispute bit is unsourced, and nonsense. The border had never been demarcated that is true, but it only became a matter of dispute with the discovery of the gas fields in 2009, and negotiations commenced in 2020. The article is just puffing this up for reasons I cannot readily discern. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Historical footnote. – Sca (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless the two repair their highly acrimonious relationship and establish some kind of diplomacy at the very least then this is more likely a result due to Lebanon's extremely poor economic state and no more than that. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - An agreement from 2 unlikely countries. 86.97.252.177 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC) this is covered by ARBPIA, and non extended confirmed accounts may not participate <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose - I can hear both sides for this, but I think at the end of the day it isn't quite notable enough for ITN, especially when it is addressing a minor maritime dispute over a small piece of sea. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait to amend article then Support—I disagree with PrecariousWorlds, nableezy, and Mr Reading Turtle that it is not notable enough or not been widely covered. It has been reported by BBC World and The Guardian who have both labelled it historic. I do however agree with Mount Patagonia that the article is not ready. It does address its background and context but it is incorrectly describing things in the lead that does not exist in the body (WP:CREATELEAD). That whole second lead paragraph needs to moved to a new "background" section, then have the lead reflect that instead. Then I think it would be good to go. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC) EDIT: Changed to support after concerns addressed by Prodrummer619 below, strikedthrough outdated comments JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Should add that I support the Altblurb JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I feel like I've greatly developed the article now Prodrummer619 (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, excellent quality to the update of the article, as it describes the recent events in good detail. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support It's in the news (NYT) and it's good to have some positive progress rather than just doom and disaster. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Good news' is not a criterion for ITN blurb-worthiness. Anyway, this is a very minor event, lacking general significance/impact, and it hasn't been finalized. As AP notes high in their report, "the deal still faces some obstacles, including legal and political challenges in Israel." -- Sca (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems to be approved now https://www.thenationalnews.com/mena/lebanon/2022/10/13/president-aoun-says-lebanon-has-approved-maritime-border-deal-with-israel/ Prodrummer619 (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Scanned it. Not sure the language means it's signed and official. In any case, it's still a minor deal. -- Sca (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT report does not say that it's minor. It explicitly calls it "major" and uses other similar language such as "landmark"; "significant"; "we cannot underestimate the importance of this agreement, not just for Lebanon and Israel — but for the region as a whole, and further afield". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - The ITN template needs stories right now.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unimportant, historical footnote in the great context of the world. Should this change relations with Palestine in any way; sure, but I heavily (and I mean heavily) doubt it will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WimePocy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Palestine? Prodrummer619 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hans Island was not posted. Shwcz (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Nikki Finke

 * Oppose Article needs more reliable sources. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose more sources still required. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dick Ellsworth

 * Weak support Final 3 years of his baseball career (1968-71) consists mostly of trade information but lacks info about his playing career (win/loss, number of appearances), which doesn't otherwise appear as a table in the article. Additional info should be included about his record in 1964, which would seem to be his best year as he was an All Star that year. Otherwise meets minimum standards.  Spencer T• C 19:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've filled in some additional info pre-1964. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 01:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Angus Trumble

 * Weak support. Meets minimum standards but article could benefit with additional depth regarding area of scholarly work (there's a sentence or two there now suggesting that he focused on European art: "He curated and wrote the catalogues for exhibitions including Bohemian London and Love & Death: Art in the Age of Queen Victoria." But IMO the article would benefit from a little bit more).  Spencer T• C 19:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Could do with expansion but what's there is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Callan

 * Posted Stephen 11:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe Roberts (basketball)

 * Support, appears to be of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane Julia

 * Oppose The hurricane has already dissipated, and it was only a Category 1. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So the 64 deaths don't constitute a notable disaster because the storm dissipated? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not being nominated for ongoing. What exactly is your argument here? Quantum XYZ (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the exact conversation that came up in Hurricane Ian’s nomination. Basically for natural disasters, they can be dissipated/ended before nomination/posting, which allows for a clearer picture of the actual numbers/damage/impact. So basically your oppose !vote means nothing since it has already been discussed in the past. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – Article is a bit scant on details, but there's widespread damage and significant loss of life in multiple countries. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Seems to meet the generally-accepted death and destruction standards. Article is a little short, however. The Kip (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but not sure if the article is long enough to post. Quantum XYZ (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a source for 64? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe so. I don't think 64 is right either since the Venezuela section only mentions 30 (sourced) and the chart mentions 37. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And that "at least 30" cites articles saying "at least 22" or exactly "35"...Strong Wait! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose There seem to be a variety of quality issues such as cn tags and confusion about the geography. For example, Venezuela is in South America, not Central America. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Easily fixed. --M asem (t) 12:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Wait Comment – Other sources listed above put toll at 28. – Sca (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the situation in Venezuela from the landslides, but there's also significant tolls in El Sav and Guat. from before . Just that I have not seen an article that adds all the causalities, and so the number 64 is from the SYNTH-acceptable table in the article. (adding up confirmed deaths per country) M asem (t) 12:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aha. -- Sca (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. Certainly a high enough loss-of-life to meet notability requirements. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Art Laboe

 * Strong support Will be helping to clean up the article post-haste in order to meet guidelines for "In the News." —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. More citations are still needed, I think they're all now explicitly tagged. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are currently four {cn} tags on this wikipage. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Lesotho general election

 * Support in principle once article is fleshed out. Currently lacking a bit in the way of prose. The Kip (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – This 440-word article contains only 125 words of narrative text, and results are listed in a table. Not up to ITN blurb standards. – Sca (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Mass bombing of Ukrainian cities

 * I might indeed consider something like this more notable than the bridge explosion, personally. However, I'd rather wait a bit to see the article and events develop. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Part of the wider picture, as it's "revenge" for the bridge blast.    One more bloody chapter in the ongoing Russian war on Ukraine. – Sca (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Per the nom comments this is related to the Crimea explosion, it should then be proposed therein itself as it is still open. If taken as an independent proposal, ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's just too much information there to cram into the Crimea bombing blurb. In order to express the significance of both items, you'd need to make a very, very large blurb. And then we would have to be careful to state that Russia assigned blame for the bombing on the Ukrainian government, rather than declaring outright that is what happened. And I believe the significance of this - the escalation of hitting civilian targets, especially those in major cities - merits its own independent proposal. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. How about this: "After Ukraine's attack on the Crimean bridge, Russia bombs several Ukrainian cities, killing at least 10 people.". In this way, we're not saying that Russia retaliated against Ukraine's attack on the bridge (although Putin says so, but Ukraine denies it), but we're merely stating the sequence of events that occurred. MSN12102001 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Such measures have been common place during this war. Russian troops have bombed maternity wards and schools. Nothing new here.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 17:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Good grief people. It's a war. People and things get blown up in wars. We have it listed in ongoing. If someone sets off a nuke drop me a line. I'd probably support that. Otherwise, can we please stop with the constant nominations of every significant development? -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While people and things get blown up is normal, such blatant war crimes, designed to target civilians, and create maximum casualties during rush hour is unprecedented, even in this invasion and war. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you have a very limited knowledge of the history of war. This is all SOP for Russia and the USSR in its various military campaigns. Wars where international law is respected are the exception, not the rule. This is all fairly mild stuff compared to what went on in WWII. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's unnecessarily pointy, User:Ad Orientem! Sure, worse horrors have happened in the history of warfare. But Russia isn't using rartillery or aerial bombings here, where stuff misses, or aiming at a military target, and there's vast collateral damage. They are using very precise cruise missiles, such as the Kh-101 which is accurate within a few metres. As far as I know, the simultaneous use of 80+ precisely targeted cruise missiles, hitting civilian parks, city streets, office towers, and apartment buildings (and admittedly some power facilities), in a way to maximize civilian casualties, and then publicly admitting to having done it in revenge for attacks on a military supply line, is completely unprecedented. But as you must know more than I do about the use of such precise cruise missiles, User:Ad Orientem, perhaps you can remind me of what attack I have forgotten? Nfitz (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind world wars, it's milder than either the Zaporizhzhia civilian convoy attack or its more recent See Also. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm on the fence about the bridge, but this is unfortunately just another thing on the list of war crimes committed during the invasion with a death toll and impact that isn't any more significant than the other events. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more significant than the bridge which killed 3 people. This killed more than 10, all civilians rather than soldiers. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How many civilian deaths have we not posted from this that have been covered by the ongoing? Its a war, the likely war crimes from Russia a major part of the linked article. We are getting very RGW here to try to generate sympathy for Ukraine which we cannot do as an amoral work. M asem (t) 19:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The bridge has an unknown cause and was not in what's been regarded as a combat zone. The Kip (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Kiev isn't a combat zone either. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * When the Russian narod overthrow Vlad and his ilk, that will be worth posting. -- Sca (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Virtually the entirety of Ukraine is a combat zone, or at least the parts immediately near the frontlines or borders. What differentiates the bridge attack from this is that we haven't seen any strikes that deep within Russian-controlled territory thus far. The Kip (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Combine with the Crimean bridge explosion nom below. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I think this particular incident is covered by the ongoing - despite the obvious war crimes, far worse than any previous missile attacks. Perhaps if Putin was indicted. Nfitz (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Who would indite him and even if they did would it have made any difference? If it was that easy he would have been in The Hague back in 2000 after ethnically cleansing Grozny en masse. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure it's relevant who indicts him - though surely he has indited himself! :) Nfitz (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose covered in ongoing. Either we develop guidelines for what events in the war are nonetheless worth posting, or we flat out decline to post all of them. Banedon (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Does seem to be a major escalation - certainly being treated that way by RS - so deserves a separate blurb in my view. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It’s a tit for tat over the bridge, but it’s still part of Ongoing. Although the loss of ten people is obviously a tragedy, the stories coming out of the recently liberated towns and villages are much worse. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:188B:1AD3:9DE0:4825 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Attacks on civilians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine have been the norm for months, and this day's death toll is lower than those at several recent single sites, hardly an escalation. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Typical attack in a war full of these, and it doesn't have a high death toll (like with the Bucha massacre) nor is it considered a "milestone" event (like with the sinking of the first Russian warship since the end of World War II, or the destruction of the largest bridge in Europe discussed below) to justify its placement. Seriously, stop with these nothing burger nominations. 2600:8802:2718:6700:8DA6:C79A:C935:90EA (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone else think this is cbanned LaserLegs? Reads very much like them and geo locates to the area they claimed to live. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unlike the bridge attack (for which my rationale is below), unfortunately the bombings of civilians in cities and towns is common for war. The Kip (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bridge attacks are less common in war, but the Ongoing article still covers three other unposted examples, comprising two Ukrainian destructions and a Russian capture (the most of which, our article omits, Ukraine later destroyed). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

 * Not supporting, picture for Bernanke. Facepalm from me that he got the award and no jail term for dereliction of duty as fed chair. Sad state of affairs. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not here to discuss whether he deserves the prize or should be jailed. I'd welcome adding a picture of either Diamond or Dybvig, but I wasn't able to find one under free licence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand, I am saying I dont support his picture, and reason for not supporting the picture. Oppose for this overall nomination due to size of the article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stress again that the individual year articles that have come up a couple times are highly questionable because of the list of possible winners. The Nobel shortlists are not revealed to the public until years after the award is given, so this is just a hypothetical list, even if the sources are types that say "So-and-so should be a frontrunner for the Nobel..." Take away the list, and all you have are details that should be on each bio page or the main list article. --M asem (t) 12:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's easily solvable. We can simply link to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences instead.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – Without the list it's a mere 285 words of narrative text, most of it boring, IMO. – Sca (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We really want the winners to be highlighted. The list of past winners is usually added as a non-mainstream link. M asem (t) 18:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tentative support: Ben Bernanke is good to go. The Awards section for Douglas Diamond is uncited, but that should be an easy fix. Philip H. Dybvig is quite short, but everything is cited and major points are covered, so it's good enough. However, I strongly suggest the removal of the link to 2022 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, replacing it with a link to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The yearly articles have been put into question multiple times on this page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb as follows: The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is awarded to Ben Bernanke (pictured), Douglas Diamond and Philip H. Dybvig for their research on banks and financial crises. Given that the only bolded article is that of the pictured person, and that article is good to go, I see no reason why we need delay this. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if we were to settle for only bolding Ben Bernanke (seems awkward as co-winners), it fails WP:ITNCRIT: Needs an extra sentence or two—beyond a press release direct quote—expanding on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman. Moreover, the page's current state is bad MOS form to mention and cite the prize in the lead only, without any mention (let alone expansion) in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mulayam Singh Yadav

 * Support. One of the most prominent politicians of India. Article is well sourced. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article looks good, I am seeing no issues. Seems ready for RD. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Aakash Singh India (talk).
 * Any prose on the subject's death? Any sources to support the tabulated data in the Electoral performance section? --PFHLai (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * PFHLai, I Added in Personal life section. Natural death. Refs added in electoral performance tables. Marked ready --Venkat TL (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes, but we need more. Can we not use 2014 refs as source for things that happened in 2019, please? -- PFHLai (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was supposed to be in 2014 section. I think I have now fixed all issues you pointed. Venkat TL (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Chuck Deardorf

 * Support assuming that the final reference supports all of the discography sections that are not otherwise sourced (this could be clearer). Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eileen Ryan

 * Support Well-referenced and long enough. Appears to be good to go. Curbon7 (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margie Masters

 * Comment: I think the sniper story deserves mention with a sentence and would add a little bit of depth, but otherwise Support. Referenced and meets minimum depth standards.  Spencer T• C 04:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 11:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Los Angeles City Council controversy

 * Oppose Not relevant to a large enough geographical area. <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 21:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Los Angeles is the second largest city in the United States, and there has been a call from President Biden for the involved councilmembers to resign. I believe the relevancy should not be understated here. riffic (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral - This may surprise folks, given I was the one who created the article in the first place. However, municipal politics like this is not even front page news in the United States, so it is unlikely to meet the threshold of being interesting to a global audience. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No policies will change, and local resignations due to abusive behaviour typically will result in another person from the same party taking over. Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose If we cover this, then we should of course then cover the Kanye West breakdown from last weekend. Which, no. We are living in times where predominate people speak poorly and in racist/sexist/x-ist tones, in public or private, and raise complaints from others. Unless this disposes a major world leader this type of stuff is status quo.--M asem (t) 21:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm not going to call for a SNOW close like I might normally do in this situation. But it's pretty chilly outside nevertheless. This is the City Council, mind you. This is not even the state legislature or the governor's office. And even then, we do not go out looking for outrage stories (we get plenty of those just in Wikipedia itself!). For something like this to be truly newsworthy, it would have to shift the tectonic plates of global politics somehow.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  23:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Simply not significant enough due to the municipal nature of this. Curbon7 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anthony M. DeLuca

 * Posted Stephen 22:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Request could we have some discussion before immediately posting? Regardless, article looks fine for posting. Support nonetheless. Cheers.  Wime  Pocy  13:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Bruno Latour

 * Not ready, the article has a bunch of uncited content. I'm also noticing an inconsistent citation style, which isn't a big deal but might also be good to fix. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots still unreferenced. There are also references to page numbers that don't make it clear which publication they relate to. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I took a look at this again, and the unreferenced paragraphs clearly refer to the texts of the books mentioned in the headings, including the page numbers. There's only one citation needed that we need to fix. Please post ASAP so this legendary figure can have a day on RD before this goes stale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:CB00:3260:5A0:2455:619C:9A08 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've looked again and there is still far too much without inline references and what you describe as clear isn't to me. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Austrian presidential election

 * Conditional support A reactions section would be greatly appreciated and some paragraphs need better references, otherwise I support. Tone 20:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose at the moment. So much is unsourced, and there's absolutely nothing regarding reactions. Also, FWIW, "incumbent" isn't needed in the blurb. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is far from "very good". Since the election of heads of state without executive powers is not ITNR, and since it's a re-election, I don't think I have any reason to support it. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Several days later the article has not been improved: there is no prose on results and no section on Aftermath/Reactions. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Amended per above comments. I did not realise there's whole sections uncited further down initially. Still there are many sources in the article, maybe they jyst need to be placed accordingly. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Absent from main pages of most RS sites. – Sca (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose—article is not awful but election is for a de facto ceremonial figure by the sounds of it. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. He is better known figure, there were many Austrian chancellors (5) during his tenure,a nd he appointed them. He does have a large influence, it was dependent on him whether there were new elections. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Anton Fier

 * Great drummer, but his death was announced on 22 September, so this is unfortunately stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) RD:John Duncan

 * One of the most poorly referenced bios I've seen here in a while. Stephen 03:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly now referenced, but still an explicit CN for the playing career and one sentence of the managerial career also lacks a source. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * With only 260 words of prose, this wikibio is a bit stubby. The date and place of birth mentioned in the infobox need sources, and there should be a sentence in the main prose mention these points with a footnoted ref or two. A referenced sentence on the death of the subject is also missing from the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Formula 1

 * Support Great work on the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support content; however, all three blurbs as presented are awkward. Perhaps "In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) wins his second World Championship", or "In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) claims the 2022 Formula One World Championship by winning the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix". AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment How about “In Formula One, Max Verstappen (pictured) claims (or wins) his Second World Championship by winning the 2022 Japanese Grand Prix.”? 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6D87:1369:B5E2:2B24 (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see it was already posted. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:6D87:1369:B5E2:2B24 (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Common practice for the R item. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support ALT2 Looks good, form is also in line with the other recent motorsport blurbs. Vida0007 (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Notable sporting event that has featured prominently in worldwide news. Crecy1346 (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and ready. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We usually post sport-season related stories when the season ends, and here there are still a couple of races, even if the winner is known. Just a comment, no strong opposition to posting now. --Tone 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is true. Generally we post once the champion is known. See for example, where Manchester City were posted as champions on 16 May, despite matches continuing up to 23 May.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment— This policy was amended in May 2021 as per Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 83. WP:ITNSPORTS currently reads: "In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined". It also existed in precedent anyway—The 2020 F1 Championship was posted on 16 November with three races remaining. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Championship article does not mention the Japan race in the mid-season rounds section (which should probably be a closing rounds section?). Stephen 20:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Still got four races left on the calender. Koltinn (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a proposed blurb that mentioned the Constructor's title remaining undecided, but it seems to have been replaced. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Previously there have been posted ITN articles about the Drivers' Championship being won before the end of the season. For example, Hamilton won in Turkey in 2020 with 3 races afterwards, but it was posted after Turkey. Seems like sticking with precedent and trying to post it in a timely fashion, that Verstappen winning the Drivers' Championship deserves a mention after the race. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 23:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Newsworthy event, also per WP: ITNR. Alt2 seems like the least clunky. Fireboltsilver (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – Season summary section must be updated before posting to the main page. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I dont see sourced prose that says that Verstappen is actually the champion.—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Bagumba. The prose describing the season seems to come to a shuddering halt after the Belgian grand prix, in the "mid-season rounds" section. I assume we're into the late-season rounds by now, and there are four grands prix after Belgium including the one where the title was clinched. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Prose in season summary section is incomplete. Last race mentioned is the Belgian Grand Prix, four races ago, held on the 28th of August.  If someone who desires this to be posted would fix that, I think this would then be sufficiently ready.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait for season summary update as mentioned above, support alt2 thereafter. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, for season summary update. Alex-h (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've updated the closing rounds section. Obviously, more could be added but the main gist of the races are there now. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt2—as per above. Opposes and waits now addressed, should be good to go. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Billy Al Bengston

 * Posted Stephen 03:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Julian Hammond

 * Posted Stephen 03:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeff Jordan

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Frank Youso

 * Support Article looks fine. No cn tags, short but sweet. Cheers. Wime  Pocy  13:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Grace Glueck

 * Posted Stephen 03:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: André Chagnon

 * Posted Stephen 00:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Faustino López Vargas

 * Posted Stephen 00:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Tobin

 * Support Seems good to me. --Bedivere (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Crimean Bridge explosion

 * Support on the merits. While we shouldn't post every step in the war, this seems to be a notable one to call out, once the article is in okay shape. 331dot (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems to ultimately be insignificant. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on that? I think we would post large explosions that severely damage and partially collapse an iconic bridge like the Golden Gate Bridge or the Øresund Bridge or the Akashi Kaikyo Bridge.  The Crimean Bridge is also strategically significant and this incident (irrespective of the cause) is already disrupting supplies to occupied Crimea.  Doesn't seem "insignificant" even if this doesn't merit posting. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia's stance is that the damage to the bridge would be "promptly restored, since it is not of a serious nature," with independent sources also not differing (note the frequent use of hypotheticals). Unlike Russian cruiser Moskva, this seems like it'll be out of the news rather quickly and the general topic is already covered in ongoing. DatGuyTalkContribs 09:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Russians have any credibility really left, especially at this point, so their stance maybe worth noting down but no more than that. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once article is expanded a bit more. I think the actual event is notable enough. Compusolus (talk) 10:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral, but adding a more concise alt blurb.  Sandstein   10:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered in ongoing. Either we develop guidelines for what events in the war are nonetheless worth posting, or we flat out decline to post all of them. Banedon (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I believe the answer is things that are not expected in the normal course of war. Attacks on roads, rail, & bridges to disrupt supply chains are expected. Incidental civilians deaths are expected, execution of civilians is not. Use a nuclear weapons is not.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support BBC says "it is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge on fire." BBC. --Bruzaholm (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support longest bridge in Europe Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment more than one explosion, so changed nomination blurbs to plural. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Moderate Oppose Another sketchy scenario, covered by Ongoing, death toll understated and dwarfed by those of recent similar explosions in several countries (including this one). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Lean toward support per all above. But the article needs some expansion and I think the blurb should mention the casualties (3 people). --BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Noteable; significant damage to a critical piece of infrastructure; Russia's (and Europe's more broadly) longest bridge.✨ <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   12:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support widely reported in its own right. Juxlos (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait – The bridge was only damaged, though ostensibly severely, and Ukraine officials have issued veiled threats to destroy it. Suggest we wait for further developments. So far, this seems more another chapter rather than a game-turner. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by the ongoing. This is why we have ongoing, we aren't turning ITN into a Ukraine-Russia news ticker. --M asem (t) 13:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Covered by the Ongoing line item. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, I see this as less of a war story (even though it's obviously related), and more of an important-bridge-collapses story, and that is a story that seems ITN worthy despite the ongoing. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 14:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bridge-partially-collapses. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was fully aware of the situation when I supported. --<b style="color:#000000">T</b> orsodo <b style="color:#000000">g</b>Talk 16:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not war related and the focus on the bridge collapse, it is readily repairable and not completely destroyed. If the entire bridge was lost, that would be significant infrastructure news, but that this is closely tied to the war and that it is nowhere close to a complete loss of the bridge makes it that more insignificant from that angle. M asem (t) 16:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To add, the bridge is already partially reopened so yeah, not a significant impact. M asem  (t) 17:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a significance beyond the physical damage. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Significant event. Ongoing does not cover this significant event at length. So I support this posting.BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing exists for a reason. Gotitbro (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If Wikipedia existed in 1940 and Charles Huntziger blew the bridges over the Meuse, we wouldn't consider that a postable item. It would necessarily be considered part of an ongoing event. There are plenty of places for readers to go if they want blow-by-blow accounts of what's going on. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Except this isn't just any other bridge that was blown up like nothing. It is the longest bridge in Europe. I would agree with you if we were some house or mall were up for an ITN nom, but not in this case.  — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too early to judge the significance. Nigej (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Couldn't disagree more. Every news report is describing the significance. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hyped. -- Sca (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Torsodog. Schierbecker (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Russia doesn't publicly concede that this incident was due to the war, and Ukraine has not admitted responsibility(just some snide remarks), so Ongoing is off base. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your probably right, but personally I wouldn't be too keen to add it until 1) we know what the effect of the explosion is and 2) we have some idea what caused it. I'm not in favour of directing readers to an article which doesn't tell them very much. Nigej (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as a major event in the war (although as per 331dot none of the parties concedes this is actually part of the war). --Bedivere (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose the surviving road has already been re-opened and there's no particular reason to think that the rail disruption will be long-term. Teemu08 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose covered in ongoing, and the BBC is reporting reopened to rail traffic during the day (as well as light road traffic), which calls into question "heavily damages the Crimean Bridge" in the Alternative blurb specified. Rwendland (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The BBC also states "It is hard to exaggerate the significance, and symbolism, of seeing the bridge - which was opened by President Putin - on fire." 331dot (talk) 20:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * True, but does "significance and symbolism" in any way imply heavily damaged? The BBC expert's comment "The lack of obvious blast / fragmentation damage" seems more pertinent. Though if you look at the video given, it does seem one road carriageway section has collapsed between one pair of pillars. Rwendland (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the Ogdensburg–Prescott International Bridge suffered temporary structural failure and two or three people were killed, I don't think we would post that, no matter what the symbolism of it would be. I think it'd be SNOW closed. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  21:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. – Sca (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering there is another bridge 50 km upstream; it hardly comparable. This is the only road/rail link Crimea has to the rest of Russia, and the longest bridge in Europe period. It is a critical piece of infrastructure that isn’t easily relieved by other infrastructure. ✨ <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   22:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is back in a reduced traffic-supporting mode. It will need repairs, but the "lifeblood" this bridge provided is absolutely still there. M asem (t) 23:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, 4iamking, and 331dot. <span style="background: #ffcc00; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);"> 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 &#124;🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦&#124;☎️&#124;📄 20:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mr Reading Turtle: I gotta get a cool signature like yours! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - This bridge is a vital piece of infrastructure that was destroyed for reasons that may or may not be related to the ongoing war. Regardless, I think it deserved a place on ITN given its significance. Supporting also per nom and above. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not destroyed. -- Sca (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, then. "Damaged", "partially collapsed", whatever--doesn't lessen the impact of the event.  — That Coptic Guy (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support the comparison of the longest bridge in Europe to various minor bridges few have heard of, makes it clear that those who oppose this, do not understand the scope of what's happened. Sometimes I feel that if Russia dropped a tactical nuke on the government buildings in Kiev, we'd have someone saying "that's what the ongoing is for" and someone else would be saying "it's not even as big as Nagasaki - so it's not notable". Nfitz (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen some shocking comments on ITN before. I think this disingenuous comparison about tactical nukes is one of the most appalling rationales I have ever seen. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * War evokes strong emotions, yes it uses colourful exaggeratory language to illustrate a point, but the point itself made is a legitimate one even if one disagrees with it; ITN process can be frustrating although I'd much prefer such rationales weren't made, it needlessly escalates tensions. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why, User:WaltCip, that mentioning the next step in escalation that Russia is talking about, is "one of the most appalling rationales" you've ever seen, User:WaltCip; personally I'd have been less surprised by Russia using tactical nukes in the current theatre, than Ukraine blowing up such massive infrastructure a 100 km inside the front line. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be lowering our level of discourse to that of genocidal warmongering tyrants and psycho-manipulators though. I think the user objected to the general tone, and nonchalantly mulling over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people if not millions and an armagedon could be seen as insensitive; you could have worded it a lot better to illustrate your point. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But this has now become a matter of semantics and to trivialize the Nfitz's original point as simply a matter of such is unreasonable. Wording was blunt, but the point regarding the coverage level of Ongoing stands. Ongoing presence is now being invoked to oppose a nom that has not been substantiated as related to the war itself. We can't unilaterally oppose anything related to this war simply because it's in Ongoing. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Background, Event and Reactions sections substantiate its relation to the war itself. The sources agree. Without the whole surrounding need for supply lines, provocation and morale boosts, this bridge is just concrete and the innocent victims are "only" a couple of adults. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't previously responded to this, but so far this war has had combat action since 2014 with Ukraine deaths at a little over 4,500 and Russian deaths at around 5,000. A tactical nuke would instantly result in the deaths of tens of thousands of troops within the span of a few seconds. Many people don't understand that the purpose of using a tactical nuke is for total and complete destruction of your enemy, just as it is with a strategic one. To insinuate that those who are opposing this item would also somehow be blind to the consequences and impact of what would be the first nuclear weapon used in combat since 1945 is not only a bad straw man argument, but it's also needlessly callous. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The assumption that the first use of a tactical nuke, User:Abcmaxx and User:WaltCip, would kill tens of thousands, let alone hundreds of thousands, is unlikely in my mind. I'd think such a use would be in the thousands at most, hopefully less. Russia has tactical nukes that are less than 0.5% of the bombs that the USA used in Japan - and less than 1% of WMDs such as the thermobaric bomb that the USA dropped on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border in 2017 - which had a lot of opposition at ITN, including by WaltCip. We are off-topic, but I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone would dismiss a nuclear weapon that killed tens of thousands of people; I don't think Russia would start with such a large weapon, at least in an urban area. At the same time, I'm stunned that there'd be opposition at ITN to post the use by the USA of a weapon of mass destruction that was almost as big as the Hiroshima bomb. WaltCip actually referred to the 2017 attack as "Pentagon military propaganda". It makes one wonder if announcement of the 1945 atomic bombings was also "Pentagon military propaganda". Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It didn't help that the bomb was being trumpeted as the "largest non-nuclear bomb" as if it were something to be proud of. At that time in U.S. history, I think we were all a bit leery of certain political figures using the military to try and score political points. I'm not saying for sure that was what was in the back of my mind when I opposed that nomination (I recall Trump wanting some enormous military weaponry parade on 4th of July or somesuch holiday), but I sensed the impact on ITN culture. In retrospect, I could have worded my rationale better. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per the BBC. BilledMammal (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - It is not completely out of the ordinary to elevate major stories in an ongoing event to a blurb. We have done it before and we should do now here. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, with the lack of a confirmed cause and Crimea not being an active combat zone I'm not sure if this is truly covered by ongoing. The Kip (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support it is very much "in the news" even now, and directly caused the Zaporizhzhia residential building airstrike in retaliation; I think there will be a lot more consequences to come from this itself.
 * I would also add that it is likely the bridge was never meant to be completely destroyed. As Ukraine does not target any civilians (very opposite to Russia) Ukraine's objective is partly to make the Russians leave Crimea and the bridge is their only way out; there are already queues of panicking people trying to leave. Their other objective is to stop the supply of fuel and arms and those are mostly done via train; the train tracks have been destroyed, and nothing more than a normal passenger car will now be able to cross really via road. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support per 331dot, Juxlos, The Kip and Nifitz among others. Not a part of the Ukraine War and all over the news. Obviously notable and the article is in very good shape. Let's post this ITN-worthy blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose – I love the work put into the article, but this type of infrastructure destruction in occupied territories seems (to me) to be an extremely normal aspect of war, and possibly less noteworthy than the capture of a city. I do think our Russian invasion of Ukraine article should cover this event in detail, but to me this hardly reach the top 10 of important Russo-Ukraine war events of this year. But the article looks good so we don't have much to lose featuring this. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Part of the wider picture, which now includes Russia's vicious missile "revenge" on Ukrainian cities for the bridge blast.    – Sca (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Significant event. Alex-h (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Covered by ongoing... just another part of the war that has been going on for some time. Regardless of who actually bombed the bridge, this is a warzone. Things of this nature are expected to occur. <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 17:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Combine with the Russian strikes into one blurb. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support but agree it should be combined with the blurb on the retaliatory Russian strikes nominated above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and merge it with the strikes on Kiev. Together, this seems like something that is significant enough to warrant a blurb, and the articles are in decent enough shape. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still neutral, but adding an alt blurb 2 that includes the retaliatory strikes. Recommend that an admin assess consensus and either closes this or posts it.  Sandstein   09:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Switching to weak support for posting both. I like these two articles, they are well-written and enlightening, and great representations of our coverage of this war. I will note that the ongoing item is still covering this subject terribly, which is a point in favor for putting our dedicated coverage on the front-page instead. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted with altblurb2. Regards So  Why  10:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry to be contrary but I don't see a consensus to post this, and there particularly isn't consensus to mention the bombings, which were explicitly rejected and closed above. This is covered by the Ongoing line item.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amakuru: I do see consensus to post the bridge attack. I have taken into account that multiple people (including yourself) have opposed due to the ongoing item being there but then again, a number of people also argued that ongoing does not necessarily cover this since the perpetrator is unknown and it might be argued that this area was not a war zone and people also argued in sufficient numbers that this should be posted despite being in ongoing. Also, while the argument is made frequently, there is no general consensus as far as I know (and certainly none in the WP:ITN page) that an item cannot be blurbed just because it falls under ongoing and this seems to be the consensus on WT:ITN for years now (for example, if Wikipedia had existed in 1945, I'm pretty sure we would have added a blurb for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki despite an ongoing "World War II" item). If you think there should be such a rule, feel free to start an RFC to amend the rules accordingly. As for the bombings, the consensus in this discussion was to add them after the proposal was made to merge them. That there was no consensus to post them as a separate item does not preclude posting them as part of this item. Regards So  Why  12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Those were brand new weapons with never-seen-before destruction and Japan surrendered shortly afterwards. This bridge explosion, as an ITN candidate, paled in comparison. You need a better reference point to be more convincing. Consensus may be developing, but we are not there yet. -- PFHLai (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @PFHLai: I was pointing out that there is no rule preventing a blurb just because there is an ongoing item. The ad absurdum example merely served to illustrate this point (on a side note, no one would have known Japan would surrender shortly afterwards at the time of this hypothetical ITN discussion).When assessing consensus in a discussion, one of the key points is to consider the strength of the arguments and arguments that invoke a rule that does not exist (e.g. "Oppose because ongoing") logically have to be considered weaker. I do acknowledge that the existence of an ongoing item is relevant when judging whether an item should be featured independently or whether it is something readers will expect to see as part of the coverage in the ongoing item. However, that does not preclude an independent entry if there is consensus to feature it despite the existence of the ongoing item. And in this case, I do believe there was such a consensus. Regards So  Why  07:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think there should be such a rule, feel free to start an RFC to amend the rules accordingly: While there is no rule that precludes a blurb for a related ongoing item, there is also no rule to discount !votes saying Ongoing is sufficient. To post a blurb or not w.r.t. to Ongoing is subject to consensus on a per-case basis. —Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba: Yes, that it "is subject to consensus on a per-case basis" is exactly my point. Logically though, any !vote that argues that something cannot be posted as a blurb just because an ongoing item exists, ignores this. I did not discount !votes that said they do not believe that this is not notable enough to rise above the coverage already provided by the ongoing item, an argument I myself have made in the past, because that on the other hand is a valid argument. Regards So  Why  08:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @SoWhy: I can understand if that was your interpretation in this case. However, I see !votes like "covered by ongoing" as being ambiguous as to whether they mean "(Sufficiently) covered by ongoing" or "(Not allowed because) covered by ongoing". For me, I'd AGF and assume the former interprettion, else ask the !voter for clarification. —Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – Agree with Amakuru. The bridge blast, which failed to destroy the bridge, was posted prematurely, IMO. Missile attacks on Ukrainian cities are covered in Ongoing. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * About 60% favored posting this. That's not close to consensus.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ITN doesn't work quite like AFD or RM, where line calls can be made; generally if there's very significant opposition then the default is not to post. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support for the actual combined blurb finally chosen. I was wavering on whether either of these would work separately, but the final synthesis seems sound. There has been a fair bit of hyperbole in the arguments for and against, some of it quite distasteful; I think the actual decision made was a good one. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Pull—as per Amakuru and GreatCeasarsGhost. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support for combined blurb, seeing as there is a motion to pull and I forgot to provide an original vote. Yes there may not consensus, but that does not mean that is grounds alone to pull. I think combining the two provides a fuller picture of the collective events and should satisfy those who supported either or both noms. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already posted now. While I didn't support the original blurb, I don't endorse pulling an item on a nom that was a split decision and thus down to administrator judgment.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am already on record as opposing, so this is not intended as a double !vote. That said, I agree with a number of comments above that there does not appear to be consensus to post this. And further there was a fairly clear consensus against posting Russia's retaliatory attacks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull per Amakuru. And we have ongoing event for the overall war already. – robertsky (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not in favor of pulling. Pulling would be amateurish & confusing to readers. And the blurb is not erroneous. -- Sca (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing suggests amateurish or confusing to readers. If anything, it suggests that consensus was not reached. Blurb isn't erroneous, but contrary to the ITN processes. If anything, pull the ongoing and the blurb remains? Surely not. – robertsky (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Readers don't care how the sausage is made. They just end up being puzzled by items appearing and suddenly disappearing from the Main Page, regardless of what process it took to get there. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  19:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bismarck said people should never watch two things being made: sausage, and laws. – Sca (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It won't be the first or the last even if we pull the blurb. Why are we beholdened to such puzzlement? – robertsky (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it really any more "confusing" than blurbs getting knocked off the end or an edit anywhere on wikipedia that removes content? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting opposehow many times do we have to say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is already in Ongoing?? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pull. I didn't support the posting of the Russian missile attacks (though supported this) - but given that even Russia has made it clear that they are linked, I think linking them in the blurb is a very pragmatic approach. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pull. Agree that a pragmatic approach has been found. Not to rehash everything that has already been said, but a)having the war in Ongoing doesn't prevent us from posting individual events of that war if we deem them significant enough; b) this is not any random bridge that was attacked (the Antonivka bridge near Kherson has been bombarded multiple times), but rather a hugely symbolic one directly linked to V Putin and his annexation of Crimea. Anyway, enough said. Khuft (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment There was no clear consensus to post this. This is the nth-time we have posted about a single event (more than even COVID-19), perhaps surappassing any other coverage on ITN. The votes reasoning with "Ongoing" inclusion do not mean it as a rule, but that this item does not go beyond its notability to be covered separately. I voted with the same ongoing reasoning here while also having previously voted to include the formal annexation by Russia. To discount these votes wholesale for being lazy or not justified enough (no one needs to argue the same point repeatedly with these noms having beome routine now) was poor judgement by . We are setting a bad precedent with the heightened/repeated coverage of this war for future ITN events. Gotitbro (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Creeslough explosion

 * Oppose, petrol stations and transports blowing up is somewhat routine (unlike bridges, see above), and the casualty count is not exceptional.  Sandstein   10:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I initially added this to the current events news portal when the story was developing. Reported outside Ireland extensively and also very significant event in the context of the small population and rarirty of such an event in Ireland. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Almost Support Unusually deadly in an uncommon setting, widely covered. Could use an Investigation section, the mystery is strong here. No need to solve it first, though, just get started. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Sandstein. Unfortunate, of course, but not generally significant. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems like a unfortunate domestic incident, and the fatalities are not as great. --M asem (t) 13:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per above. Edl-irishboy (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support War events should not be a measure for other contemporary events, this is significant on its own considering where it took place. Gotitbro (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose This sort of thing is not common in developed countries. That said, I don't think it is quite on a level justifying attention at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutral, leaning support - The death toll of this unusual disaster is in that weird median of being in-between significant and insignificant (combined with all other factors, of course). --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  15:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As we used to say, parochial. -- Sca (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We post a lot of parochial items on ITN, and at times it's not even really clear what the definition of parochial means. That's why it's not listed anywhere in WP:ITNCRIT as a discriminatory factor. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  18:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is met in this instance. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - it's notable because this type of thing happens very rarely within the developed world, and is a freak accident. Rest in Peace to the victims. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  22:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is a local event that will be unlikely to garner widespread coverage, or at least enough to justify a front-page story. Definitely tragic for that town but not significant beyond that. Sorry. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not true, it already has been reported worldwide, even the aftermath: DW - Germany, TVN24 - Poland, Washington Post - USA, Le Monde - France, News24 - South Africa. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ogbaru boat disaster

 * Comment No-one interested? Sheila1988 (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article is a stub, sub-1500 characters, and the background, which doesn't relate to this current incident, says that the event is common. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Article is a bit short. Is there a sourced rational for why it was overloaded (which the blurb implies was from shaping or evacuating from floods) M asem (t) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ada Fisher

 * Posted Stephen 22:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charles Bowsher

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Warren J. Baker

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lorry I. Lokey

 * Support Short but adequate. No issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Peter Robinson (novelist)

 * Posted Stephen 22:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dave Dryden

 * Support Nice length and very well cited, very good article in my opinion. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sara Lee

 * Posted Stephen 21:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize 2022

 * Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't care about breadth of coverage, just that coverage there. --M asem (t) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In the news biz we do, in the real world. -- Sca (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're the encyclopedia biz, so we have different metrics. M asem (t) 02:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, ITN is a fixture of the encyclopdia that is effectively an adjunct of news reporting. (But to be candid, my main motive was to try to evoke some work on this highly significant Nobel.) -- Sca (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to be that guy, but this is a INT/R item so that's more or less assumed, no? DarkSide830 (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bialiatski's article needs a lot of work, and the Center's article is barely a stub. The Memorial article needs a bit of referencing improvement. --M asem (t) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not loving any of the blurbs verbatim, is there one prize "jointly" awarded to the 3 recipients; was there 1 prize to a person and 1 prize to 2 organizations jointly, were there 3 prizes, etc? - put up an alt2 to try to clarify that there is 1 prize, with 3 recipients splitting it. — xaosflux  Talk 18:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality: Ales Bialiatski is mostly unsourced and reads like a CV. Memorial (society) appears OK. Center for Civil Liberties (Ukrainian civil society organization) is essentially a stub.  Sandstein   10:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for the same reasons as others have pointed out already. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Stale. – Sca (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Not more stale than the chemistry award though, given not much updates seems coming, maybe a incomplete coverage is better than zero coverage on one of the biggest annual awards (again)? 218.188.197.158 (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tyrone Davis (American football)

 * Support – Article appears to be of sufficient quality for ITN. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Günter Vetter

 * The whole article is sourced to only two biographical websites. There is no independent coverage of his career. Stephen 22:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The two websites are his parliamentary biography and the national public broadcaster, so they're certainly reliable. Not many print sources talking about him. There are some news channels that talked about him, but I don't know Deutsch. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jody Miller

 * Posted Stephen 21:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gian Piero Ventrone

 * Comment: IMHO, this wikibio could work as an RD if it gets more developed and longer. Right now, it's a little short. Blurbs are more for heads of state while still in office, a world leader or globally-known figure (Einstein, Thatcher, Mandela, QE2, Putin, T'Challa (if real), ... etc.).  I don't mean disrespect, but I don't think the subject of this wikibio qualifies for blurbing. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , have removed the blurb. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 08:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the removal. Can the article be expanded a bit more? Not everyone thinks 249 words is long enough. There isn't a strict cut-off number, but when DYK is asking for 300 minimum, ITN/RD shouldn't be too far off. -- PFHLai (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find else but this one. However, it contains only unencyclopedic content. I think Quality > Quantity. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 18:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Any info from RS on his upbringing, education, career before joining Juventus in 1994 at age 34? Things like that should take this short article out of stub range. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 13:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. No longer a stub. 443 words now. --PFHLai (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you like it why don't you support it? <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No objections in four days, why can't it be posted? <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 16:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent deaths cannot be posted if their article is currently nominated for deletion. DatGuyTalkContribs 16:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is a stupid nomination, it currently has 6 keep's against the sole nominator. Everyone could close it. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 16:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The AfD nomination is trending towards being kept. The ITN nomination has a few days until it goes stale. Assuming the AfD continues this way for the next few days, I think we can close it a little early, after its run for six days or so, and post it for ITN before it goes stale. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The AfD nomonator has withdrawn it. It can be posted. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 08:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD It's a better blurb than most we see, for giving a cause, but it's a natural cause. Famous as T'Challa or not, that's never much of a story. Article is short, but not glaringly inaccurate (unless an Italian reader can point out what proves me wrong on that). InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Notice: Articles for deletion/Gian Piero Ventrone is in progress. --PFHLai (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Stupid AfD, three keep's and only one (the nominator) delete. <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 16:31, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Notice: The AfD has been withdrawn. (2.0) <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Dr</b> <b style="font-family: Verdana; color: #6633FF;">Salvus</b> 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature

 * Oppose for now For the usual reason. Annie Ernaux has a couple prose spots that need citations and almost the entire Awards section is unsourced. Nobel Prize in Literature should not be bolded, but if it is, that adds more problems, as there are several uncited paragraphs. Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Opoose Ernaux's page lacks a sufficient update per WP:ITNCRIT:—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another stupid, pointless rule. Toss it out. There is no need for an article to be updated.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So you think we should have posted this article even if it hadn't been updated to note that she won the Nobel Prize? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That could have been accomplished with a one-sentence update. If someone with a featured article dies, like say Buzz Aldrin, we don't want people adding five sentences just to warrant a blurb. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We're not a news website. The entire purpose of ITN is to feature writing that is recently updated. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Looks pretty good. One citation required left. Can you tell me what the issue is with fn 19? It looks okay to me.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the help text linked from the error message insufficient? If so, what is not clear and why?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I got it. It said "Check |archive-url= value" but I checked it and the archive-url was fine. What it meant (I think) is that the archive-url did not match the url, so I adjusted the url card and it is okay now. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Ernaux's article is missing citations at several places. --M asem (t) 02:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality just needs citations on Eranux page and maybe some expansion in certain places. Maybe use 2022 Nobel Prize in Literature instead of Nobel Prize in Literature as it has other information not found on Eranux's page. echidnaLives (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready to post with the laureate's name in bold in the blurb (I haven't even looked at the other article). I've gone through and referenced everything that needs a reference. This is based on the assumption that the section "Works" does not need referencing. Quite a bit of content has been posted since she was awarded the Nobel Prize, including about the prize itself and reactions to it.  Schwede 66  08:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready to support The ISBN/source is missing for the last seven books included in the "Works" section. I'm concerned that we are falling behind in Nobel Prize nominations this year. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to see a general reference if not ISBN for those books, then ready to post. Tone 15:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support cited now. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Not overlong, but looks adequate. – Sca (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted.  Sandstein   17:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Nong Bua Lamphu attack

 * Support blurb Per nom. Article looks to be in good shape.  aeromachinator   (talk to me here)  09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently still a stub, but I expect to support this as the article gets expanded. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support at a nursery, bloody hell. Juxlos (talk) 10:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support because it's easily notable enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is written as if the named suspect (not yet convicted from what we have in the article) did it; the attack section should be "The shooter did this" type language. --M asem (t) 12:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't any doubt as to who did it. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Until that person's convicted, we assume innocent, per BLPCRIME. Yes, it seems unlikely anyone else could have done it, etc. but until the dust has settled, most such attack articles leave the identity of the shooter/attack vague until the conviction is secured. M asem (t) 12:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * They shot and killed themself, so there won't be any trials. —Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "You can't libel the dead." -- Old saying in the news biz. -- Sca (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can libel the dead's family. They're a suspect during this period. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Police identified the suspect as 34-year-old former police officer Panya Kamrap." -- AP
 * "Police named the attacker as Panya Kamrab." "Police say he ... killed himself and his family." -- BBC
 * "The gunman [was] named as ... Panya Khamrab." — "... before killing himself and his family." -- AlJazeera – Sca (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Identifying the suspect is different from reporting the crime using their name directly. Even in these suicide attacks we try to avoid naming the person in the description of events until an investigation is complete to assure that the suspect actually did it. M asem (t) 13:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * when the 2022 cetinje shooting was, it looked like , and also named the only suspect as the perpetrator. i don't know how far into the suspect's family wp:suspect reaches, but the suspect also apparently killed his wife and children.  dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that at ITNC (not that it was here, just don't remember it) but I would have had the same issue there with thst, that until police close the investigation, the description of the event should not explicitly name the suspect. We can identify who the police have named, but avoid using that name is the breakdown of the event until police have settled that as fact with their invesyigation. M asem (t) 13:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ... pending development, cleanup of article. Significance dubious as it's another act of an apparent wacko, but the toll – 37, including 24 children – can't be ignored. Widely covered. Favor Alt2 or Alt3 because outside Thailand very few English-speakers will recognize the name of the province, either. — Sca (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support for reasons stated above. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, if the Robb Elementary School shooting stayed on ITN for days then there isn't a reason to exclude this one. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a specious argument. The length of time any blurb spends on ITN is entirely a factor of other items being posted. It says nothing about the significance of the item itself.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. All of the articles cited appropriately use the "police claim" language, so we certainly do not want to put the BLP's guilt in Wikipedia's voice.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Horrific crime. Concerns over BLP don't appear to be a major issue as all of the local authorities are identifying the perpetrator without any qualification and the subject is deceased so there is no possibility of a trial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP update I removed the person's name from the shooting description. He's identified in a later section, which resolve BLP concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that resolved my concern. M asem (t) 13:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb comment Nursery is mentioned in most headlines. I've added a new alt blurb.  Also the district seems too low of a level to be recognizable, even for most Thais. I'd suggest using the province.—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support alt Meets quality criteria. Various circumstances should (hopefully) avoid the usual shooting posting objections.—Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * support. deadliest mass shooting ever in thailand.  article quality exceeds minimum requirements.  would it make sense to mention that it largely occurred in a childcare center, or that the majority of those killed were children?   for the giza church fire mentioned that it had spread to a nursery, and that it had killed 18 children.  the altblurb partially addresses this, but is currently slightly inaccurate as he apparently drove home before killing his family.  dying (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * by the way, i am slightly wary about using the term "nursery" since i believe most of the sources (or at least the ones i am seeing) refer to the site as a childcare center, daycare center, children's center, or something similar. dying (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Lots of casualties, shocking event, this deserves mention.VR talk 14:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support and ready! Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Location in blurb Using "Northern Thailand" in the blurb seems dumbed down and comes off as a Western bias compared to our usual blurbs. Nong Bua Lamphu is in the article's current title, and provides a teaching moment to mention it in the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks ready and need not be expanded solely for the purpose of ITN. What a horrible event. I also would go with alternative blurb 1 as it is the most descriptive. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality and this awful event is clearly significant in ITN terms.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted alt1 with '37 deaths.' DatGuyTalkContribs 15:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – The name of the province conveys nothing to most readers of English Wiki. Mentioning the child victims would be much more meaningful. Cf. AP headline: "37 dead, mostly preschoolers, in Thai day care rampage." Not suggesting we use such language as "rampage," only that we say something about the kids. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not to harp on specificities here, but I think it's assumed that if the shooting were at a nursery, most victims would, unfortunately, be children. Perhaps Blurb #1 conveys both that children were the primary victims as well as where the province is for those who don't know much about Thailand or its provinces. For example, the recent ITN story about the stadium stampede in Indonesia was a learning moment for me to understand that Indonesia has provinces too. I absolutely see where you're coming from though.  — That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We all can learn, but in ITN we're writing for an audience primarily of quick at-a-glance readers. Those who want to know more can read the article. -- Sca (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support adding "mostly children"' or similar, but location doesn't require removal. —Bagumba (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lenny Lipton

 * Comment: Books list needs either a citation or an ISBN, otherwise this has appropriate depth and is referenced otherwise, conditional support.  Spencer T• C 02:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. Refs have been added.  Spencer T• C 04:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Stamm

 * Support I read "Bavaria" as "Bolivia" and so was surprised to see a German politician. Looks to be sourced and in good shape to post, AGF on German language. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Allen (scriptwriter)

 * Support Article is in good shape. Looks ready to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy Boggs

 * Support Another short and well-referenced article. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 05:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Chemistry

 * Support. But I suggest putting the image of Barry Sharpless, for now he is part of the select list of five individuals with two Nobel Prizes. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * it's clear that this's notorious. But let's see if someone can make a collage with the photos of the three laureates. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine for a Nobel prize winner, Alex-h (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, sourcing issues on two of them are blocking this. M asem (t) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, Karl Barry Sharpless is almost good to go, there are just two easily fixable cn tags. Carolyn R. Bertozzi has more problems: several awards are uncited and so is a big chunk of the Personal life section. Morten P. Meldal has the biggest problems of the bunch: the entire achievements sections and almost the entire awards section is unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty much good to go now. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. -- remind me, was it you who had helped create a composite image with all the prize winners combined into a single image the last time? If so, please can you do that this year as well? Ktin (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I've boldly commented out paragraphs or whole article sections that were poorly cited or without any citations. That makes the Morten P. Meldal article look much more sparse but it's still a valid bio. I suggest that in their current form, the three articles make the cut.  Schwede 66  00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Meldal's page still has lots of unsourced text. They all seem to only have one sentence updates, failing WP:ITNCRIT:—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What else are you going to be able to say about winning the Nobel? That's at most a one- or two-sentence update as any effects that would have are longer term. M asem (t) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An extra sentence or two—beyond a press release direct quote—on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We are almost a week after the fact, this is becoming embarrassing. Even if the individual pages just say "is a chemist", the names of the winners are still more than newsworthy.  c o m p l a i n e r  22:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Morten P. Meldal remains mostly unreferenced. Stephen 23:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * SupportI've added a couple of references to Meldal's page. Any chance this can go up soon? Narayanese (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Go go go! I commented out whatever remained that was uncited, so its good to go now. Only a few hours before this goes stale. Curbon7 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted replacing the Literature Prize. Stephen 20:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: César Mascetti

 * Posted Stephen 21:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shigeki Tanaka

 * Support Appears well-sourced; no issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 04:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Vainisi

 * Support I've referenced the only unsourced part. Good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan Hotchkis

 * Support Article is in good shape for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Aaron Judge's 62nd Home Run

 * Oppose Look, I'm a huge baseball fan, and a Yankees fan. Even though Judge is my favorite player since Jeter, I can't support this. The MLB record is 73, set by Barry Bonds. As much as we might like to overlook the steroid champion, we can't. Great for Judge, bad for the Yankees if he signs elsewhere as a free agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused What, exactly, has been achieved here? The article linked is behind a paywall or wants me to sign up, so I looked elsewhere and found this. It shows this achievement at seventh place among the MLB all-time single-season home run list. Do American League players not hit as many home runs? (SIGNED: A non-American interested in baseball.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There were some records for single-season home run leader, then Babe Ruth came and broke them all. His personal best was 60 in the 1927 season. Then, Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Those were both in the American League. Then, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke Maris' record in 1998 while playing in the National League. And Barry Bonds also surpassed it. The issue at play, and the only reason we're talking about the "American League record", is because McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs. So, many don't see their records as "genuine", and are putting Judge's accomplishment this season ahead of the steroided seasons. But, MLB still recognizes 73 as the single-season home run record for MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Roger Maris Jr. has been pushing the idea that his father is still the "legit" record holder. Surely he's biased. I am so, so biased in favor of Judge and the Yankees myself, and Judge is having an amazing season. But, Bonds is still the record holder. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is one of the biggest records in baseball. The 3 guys you saw were all in peak steroid era (1998-2001, though the steroid era extended deeper into the 90s and 2000s then they started drug testing). The American League actually has slightly more home runs but by luck the 3 highest dopers were in the other sub-league of the top league. Unlike the Olympics major league baseball doesn't revoke accomplishments for cheating (the Houston team literally won the yearly world championship while cheating a few years ago and was punished but they didn't revoke their win). In cricket terms a home run is a six (each bounce boundary only causes a bit under 1 run on average, a bigger dropoff than 6 vs 4 in cricket) but there's only c. 1 home run per game per team on average and they cause 1.something (1.7-1.8 I think) out of 4.3 runs per game per team on average so they're actually rarer than soccer World Cup goals and about as valuable. In baseball you can fail to score even if you safely run 90 yards before fielders can get the ball to you, but just hit it over the boundary (300 to 400 feet away) and your team's guaranteed 1-4 runs (4 if you have 3 "batting partners"). Average c. 27 wickets and 140 deliveries per team in a Twenty20-length game and only 1 homer and 4-5 runs. 5 in the steroid and human growth hormone era. The recordholder literally injected etc so much of those drugs his skull visibly grew and he set it pimply-backed and muscular like a Greek god at age 36 after being skinny as a young man. Our roided up role models also got the side effect of small testicles and low ball testosterone, higher body fat, heart risk etc. Some of this damage is permanent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The National League was always better at small ball. Levivich (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, regrettably. Many people regard this as the real record, but sadly it is only officially the AL record. IMO AL/NL records are not ITN worthy (and very possibly not MLB records as a whole, but that may be a topic for another day). DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As pointed out, this is not the MLB record, just the AL record. --M asem (t) 02:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is literally inside baseball. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Loretta Lynn

 * Support Blurb - Country music legend. CoatCheck (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb when ready. Being the most awarded female country artist in history and the article calling out "her groundbreaking role" certainly lean Lynn being transformative in her field. rawmustard (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment just don't forget to evaluate the quality of the article. I remain neutral on blurb, because country music is a genre that generally has popularity in a very specific country, so we are hardly in front of a singer massively popular worldwide. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lots of sections without sources. Needs a lot of work just to get to RD. Not against a urb, but the quality isn't yet there for it. --M asem (t) 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. Will likely support a blurb if the article can be brought up to scratch. Subject was a titan in the country music genre. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I don’t agree that she was so influential in the history of country music. A great singer yes, but no contribution at all in popularising country music worldwide, which is what would make her transformative. She was definitely not of the same stature as Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Kenny Rogers or Dolly Parton.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's that's the company we're talking about, Rolling Stone ranked them: 49.Rogers, 8.Parton, 6.Nelson, 4.Lynn, 3.Cash. Wide Open Country has Lynn, Cash, Parton, & Nelson among the 30 greatest. Bilboard  has 25.Rogers, 9.Lynn 5.Parton, 3.Nelson, 2.Cash    GreatCaesarsGhost   19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t say it. I’d rather argue that Hank Williams was perhaps the most influential country singer of all time but can’t include him because he died literally before all these four began their careers. Cash made a global tour to popularise country, Rogers and Parton did popularise it through their crossover music, but Lynn did not succeed in popularising it in any way. Country isn’t a mainstream music genre worldwide so that we can post a blurb for many singers. There must be something else other than a good voice that makes someone transformative.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to whatever criteria you'd like to apply, but "transformative" was removed from the criteria for death blurbs some time ago.  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb subject to sourcing being fixed - perhaps as she was considered old style country rather than the crossover style she didn't appeal to that mass market like Dolly or Kenny, but a huge star and one of the most important country music figures nonetheless. RIP Josey Wales Parley 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Longtime household name among fans of U.S. country music. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support more than enough evidence for her to be considered a noteworthy death per above. She may not have crossed over, but the evidence is overwhelming that she was iconic within the genre. If Jeff Carson can be on the front page, so can she.
 * Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Jeff Carson was posted to RD only. We’re discussing whether Lynn should get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose It doesn't matter how important she was when the article is at least 50 citations short of being suitable for the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article is a long way away, but remember that this woman wrote most of her own material. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...until a lot more citations are found for the article. It is hopelessly under-sourced. And I can't see why a blurb is needed here. There is nothing blurbworthy about her death. She was obviously well known in her country, but I haven't seen blurbs for performers equally well known in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Per HiLo48, Black Kite, et al. I also notice that the article is orange-tagged at the top saying it has “Multiple Issues,” which is usually not the best of signs when it comes to article quality. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:B043:B00D:FAA5:596E (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Way short on references. (Also oppose a blurb, if it ever gets that far.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * • Support She’s way too influential to be ignored. The quality of the article is fine, but I understand we’re picky. Just a shame such a titan is being ignored… Donignacio (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is a long section for someone who is allegedly being "ignored". Help us fix the article and it'll be posted sooner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the “nomination” page is not what I meant. The article itself appears in my estimation to be comprehensive, but I’m not picky. At this point, the time has passed, I’m afraid. I just wonder if there’s other motives at play. Donignacio (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles that are boldly linked on the main page need to be of high quality to represent WP's best work. Her article may be comprehensive, but its sourcing is presently shoddy and not representative of WP's best. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. M asem (t) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why the heck do people expect items to be posted in less than 24 hours? We've had anomalies of items that get posted even faster than that, sure, but it's not the norm around here. I'll never believe that it is. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't know how things work at ITN/C does not excuse the lack of good faith you are presuming with that other motives crack. Our motive is posting sourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m making an observation that, in my opinion, there is an injustice. An opportunity to highlight a transformative female figure lost. But sure, I’ll make it my personal mission to improve Loretta Lynn’s Wikipedia article. Donignacio (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That thing you just sarcastically dismissed- making it your personal mission to improve articles- is our entire purpose in being here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was being serious. I just can’t improve the article at this particular moment. If I wanted to get sarcastic, I’d have brought up all the cricket players who show up on the front page. Donignacio (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb, RD blurbs should be reserved for cases where sourcing could support a separate article on the death and funeral of the person. This occurs quite often, and is an indicator of how important the person was in the real world, instead of in the minds of those debating here. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all. The ability or existence of separate death article is a very likely reason to post a blurb, but not limited to that. M asem (t) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it's true, as it is an opinion of mine and of some other editors. I will state my opinion every time a non-blurb-worthy person is nominated. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb American country music fans is a pretty niche demographic, kinda like French hip hop fans or something. Not known widely enough for a blurb imo. AryKun (talk)
 * Incredible though it may seem to some of us, there are fans of 'American' country music outside the U.S. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Garth Brooks last month sold out an 80,000 capacity stadium in Dublin, Ireland on each of the 5 nights he performed Josey Wales Parley 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As did Michael Bublé and Robbie Williams, who are way more famous. I may enjoy a night in with a Bollywood film, a souvlaki take away, and a game of mahjong, but just as enjoying those things do not make those things any less Indian, Greek and Chinese respectively, neither does the fact people may enjoy country music outside the US make it any less American. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are indeed also French hip hop fans outside of the francophone world. Though I would very much love to blurb top-of-their-field people in niche genres, we'll also get Dolly Parton and Bob Dylan as US country blurbs in the future. US country is represented just fine, and Lynn isn't quite up there. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind French hip-hop, we didn't even consider blurbing recently deceased American world hip-hop star Coolio! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can imagine a few world-famous American hip-hop stars we will certainly blurb when the time comes! Hopefully this won't be for a long time, however, as they're all still quite young ^_^ ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He was 59. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb It's very US-centric fame and a niche music genre. She may be well known in the US and among fans of country music, but absolutely anonymous outside of that. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality as well. Aside from issues already raised by others, the article is all over the place; lots of content which is all jumbled up in half-prose half-lists, horrible to navigate and horrible to read. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Discography is now cited. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD now. I would ask for what value of X in "Xth best country singer alive" or "Xth best country singer of all time" a blurb is justified. Clearly we're already in a niche genre, so I'm going to say 1st & 5th respectively, and she is not there.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Subject to the article referencing being fixed up. Loretta Lynn's fame transcends country music - way more famous than the other people who have been mentioned here except Hank Williams (and would not be their opinion if you asked them). She is an important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s, through singing about topics previously considered taboo, such as birth control, domestic violence and double standards. Sissy Spacek won the Oscar for portraying her in the movie Coal Miner's Daughter. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Way more famous than the likes of Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton? I don't think that's likely. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dolly Parton would not agree. Jack White from The White Stripes called her both a "mother figure" and "the greatest female singer-songwriter of the 20th century". "She was such an incredible presence and such a brilliant genius in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. What she did for feminism, women's rights in a time period, in a genre of music that was the hardest to do it in, is just outstanding and will live on for a long time."  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aye, in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. I think a lot of us have lost a co-worker like that, maybe several, great people once you get to know them. As a mainstream music fan who also knows a thing or two about American pop culture until 2006, I'm almost certain Dolly Parton is the female country star. Then there's Shania, Reba and Faith. Loretta's not chopped liver, but neither are Leann, Tanya and Wynonna. Photo RD, when ready, if ever. No blurb for Jack White, either, whenever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s - maybe in US and on the country music scene but certainly not beyond it, and I cannot see any mention of her in the Second-wave feminism article. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – Adding a clearer !vote for the closing admin. I believe US country will be well-represented over time, and Loretta Lynn is just not quite up there. If this were a GA I might've swayed in favor, but all these one-sentence paragraphs just aren't great featuring material anyway. Article doesn't seem quite ready yet for RD either; I hope those citation-neededs will be fixed soon! ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose RD on quality Many outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems mostly resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I have taken care of most of the cn tags. There are a few more to go. Any help would be appreciated. It would be a real shame if this didn’t make it to RD. Thriley (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All cn tags have been taken care of. Looks ready to post. Thriley (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * does it look ready? Thriley (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was reviewing it... Had added a {cn} tag on a sentence about political affiliation. Was going to look for sources later today. But that sentence got deleted before this wikibio got posted on ITN/RD. Oh, well, ... never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics

 * Support - Looks good to me(also this is my first time voting, so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This comment is totally fine, PrecariousWorlds, and I'm sure everyone here will be happy to have another voice in the discussions here. The three articles indeed look quite decent so this will probably be ready to get featured on ITN in the near future. I'm personally going to wait with my !vote until John Clauser's article is expanded a bit more tho. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I hope I can be of help to this project. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support... although Alain Aspect's article has a missing reference ([10]); there needs to be more references of Clauser's article (there's only two, and his entire biographical section only relies on a single source, not enough); at a glance, there are no issues for Zellinger's article. Been some time I made a nomination, hope my viewpoints arent rusty. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In Zeilinger's article, the awards section is largely unreferenced, this needs fixing before we can post. Tone 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your right. Over 20 awards, and none of them cited. Cheers, gavre  (al. PenangLion) (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Are you sure we need to fix this before posting? The news might get stale in the meantime. It happened last year ! Why not just remove the unsourced information and post the news? Varoon2542 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can someone with the ability try to create a composite image that combines the three awardees into a single picture? Is combining three images a tad difficult? Tagging who iirc has created composite images in the past. Ktin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Nobel prize is a major event and comes in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that has never been questioned. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not ready I've orange-tagged the articles because they still don't meet the quality requirements as the CN tags they've have not been fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: Alain Aspect has a few inline cn tags that should be easily fixable, but also the entire Awards section is completely unsourced. A big paragraph in John Clauser is also unsourced. Anton Zeilinger is almost catastrophically unsourced: there are around a dozen-and-a-half cn tags, and a huge portion of the Awards section is unsourced.
 * Not ready I've boldly commented out uncited sections and two of the bios are ready, but Anton Zeilinger is a show-stopper.  Schwede 66  00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but this is getting a bit urgent. Last year, one nobel prize win in science was not posted for similar reasons. Quite shameful. Can't the uncited sections be removed and the blurb published? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are 28 citation needed tags and not everything that is uncited is tagged. So no, this isn't remotely ready and if you removed everything that's uncited, there would not be much left. Major exercise required to fix this. You are welcome to have a go at this, though.  Schwede 66  06:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I do get your point. I can't have a go at it, I'm not that good. Well, we are moving forward to another year when a Nobel Prize in Science won't be featured on the main page. By the time the article is up to standards, the news will be stale. I remember a time when many complained that there weren't enough editors for sociology articles on wikipedia. Apparently, we don't have enough persons for science articles now. So much so for an universal encyclopaedia. Varoon2542 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose All currently fail WP:ITNCRIT with only one-line updates to the pages:—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, what else can you say about winning the Nobel beyond a sentence or two? Common sense has to apply here. M asem (t) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2/3 articles are fine. Zeilinger's is still heavily tagged with cn on sections other than Nobel Prize. Tone 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An extra sentence or two—beyond a press release direct quote—on why they won, that is also semi-accessible to a layman. —Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support We are almost a week after the fact, this is becoming embarrassing. Even if the individual pages just say "is a physicist", the names of the winners are still more than newsworthy.  c o m p l a i n e r  22:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WORK NEEDED Can we all improve Zeilinger's article? It would be unforgivable that this year, once again, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics is not on the Main Page. I will work on it too, but there's a lot of work to do. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Go go go! I have commented out all of the unsourced content from Zeilinger's article. The content of the material hidden isn't show-stopping, and the article still makes sense with it hidden. We only have a few hours before this becomes stale, so it is good enough for now. Curbon7 (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The articles are referenced now, large and with much prose. Seem good to go now. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support articles are in acceptable condition. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 19:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Kim Jung Gi

 * Oppose Article has multiple citation needed tags. The "Bibliography" section is entirely unsourced. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's time for a re-review? Looking better after a few of days already. The "Bibliography" section still needs more sourcing, though. --PFHLai (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tiffany Jackson

 * Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support meets RD breadth and sourcing requiements.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support solid C class bio. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 03:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: William K. Brewster

 * Support Another short but well-referenced article. Of course, good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Franz

 * Support Article is short but well-referenced. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support G2G. marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eamonn McCabe

 * Not just sports; he has several works in the Nattional Portrait Gallery and other collections, also. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support – article is well-referenced and now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is good and has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Jerzy Urban

 * Comment Urban served as official spokesman of the Polish Communist regime in 1981-89. Infamous for press conference after the introduction of martial law on Dec. 13, 1981, during which 100 dissidents were killed. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment a key figure in Poland. I have expanded the article a bit, ultimately it doesn't really reflect just how much he was generally loathed in Poland, even among those who secretly enjoy the satire of Nie. More references needed regarding his early life. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * probably not blurb-worthy on en-wiki, but a photo may be appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * IAR aside, I thought we had a policy that photos are for blurbs only. The most recent discussion I could find-   GreatCaesarsGhost   21:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment – RD only. Generally unknown outside PL. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support RD no blurb - former spokesperson of Polish Communist Regime CR-1-AB (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now Way too many unsourced paragraphs, including the entire "Court case for offence to John-Paul II" section. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Bosnian general election

 * Comment – Bosnia is fairly sui generis as a political system but the elections of the three Members of the Presidency are politically more significant than the election of the House of Representatives. "Winning a plurality of votes" is fairly insignificant as Bosnia and Herzegovina is like Belgium or Lebanon, where the parties are not directly competing with each other. JackWilfred (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with JackWilfred. Maybe a better blurb would highlight the 3 people that were elected to the Presidency? AltBlurb proposed. Khuft (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment As usual, the "Preliminary results" section needs prose and a section on Reactions/Aftermath needs to be added. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I think there shouldn't be a picture, due to the obvious ethnic implications (we don't want to be seen as preferring one ethnic group). Curbon7 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Although the image can be rotated or someone can make a collage with three (which I don’t know how to do and I preferred to put the pic of the only woman). In any case, we are in days of Nobel prizes, so it would hardly stand out many days a photo of the new members of the presidency in the event that this nomination succeeds. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as much as I love the idea of a rotating one, I think it's just easier not to include a picture. JackWilfred (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support AltBlurb and Oppose picture, as per above. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support AltBlurb, I think the article is looking good. The BLPs look alright, but I would recommend fixing up the citations of Željka Cvijanović if possible. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no prose on the actual result, it's all background, electoral system and results tables currently. Stephen 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Bulgarian snap parliamentary election

 * Oppose on quality For the usual reasons: there's no prose about the results, there's no section on reactions or aftermath and it would be nice if there was more prose in the other sections where there are only tables. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Still seriously lacking prose, and one of the three short paragraphs is even uncited. Nowhere near the required levels for ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

 * I guess 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is not bad as a list article, but it's a bit stubby for my liking. Pääbo's article looks good, though, so I will probably support this soon if the former is expanded a bit more :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 11:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Laureate" section of the Nobel article needs sources and a "Reactions" section should be added. In Pääbo article, there are tags to be fixed and sources to be added in some paragraphs. But in general both bolded articles are fine and will be ready soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would remove the entire "unofficial possible nominees" section because this is just speculations - or at least condense it to a single-paragraph prose instead of a table with flags and all that. The laureate himself should be the sole bolded article, and it is good to go as soon as the cn tags get fixed. Tone 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. As every year, this is brand news and deserves ITN. And tomorrow (and from then on) there's more. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am concerned on the specific year article here. I don't recall us doing that with the Nobels before (the overall listing of each award, yes), and the fact that the shortlist of candidates for the award are not made public makes that current list there highly suspect and OR (even though those are all pointing to secondary articles saying "These people should get awards". If you take that list out, that only leaves the winner, which is what the other bold link covers. --M asem (t) 01:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, lists of people who have been called X (candidates in this case) typically become unwieldy directories with no selection criteria of who is WP:DUE to be included. See Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Last year (and past?), we just linked to the general Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine page..—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I post this now? I would just like to see some explicit support. Not planning to link the 2022 article, just the laureate. Tone 13:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If Pääbo is the article under discussion then I support featuring it. It looks good. The normal Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine article looks good too. 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine might deserve an AfD discussion? Regardles, it is of insufficient quality for ITN. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. A few unsourced sentences and a couple of tags. Please see if anyone can fill those, now that the article is on the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull Only paltry one-sentence update about the Nobel prize at the bolded Svante Pääbo, failing WP:ITNCRIT (emphasis added):—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Brazilian general election

 * Would it make more sense to just post the result of the run-off once it happens instead of double posting? Curbon7 (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Post the second round results. The first round results of the French presidential election wasnt posted. Only the Second round. Haris920 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The results from the first round are not ITN/R when there is a run-off. We post when the winner is known, so wait until that happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Question Since this was a general election, covering also the totality of the Chamber of Deputies, parts of the Senate, the governors and state assemblies, shouldn't we at least post the results of the election to the Chamber of Deputies? The presidential election can then be posted on 30. October. Article wouldn't be ready yet - results of the legislative part of the elections hasn't been updated yet. Khuft (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Wait for the result of the run off. Then we can post the president and any legislative information relevant at that time. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment the ongoing nomination was closed and opposed as it was said that first round should be posted as a blurb. Now this nomination is being opposed too which I find inconsistent; in that case surely the ongoing nomination should be re-considered. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither of those things is appropriate. It is not "ongoing" in the usual sense, where there are daily updates to post. This is just a two-part election, and we'll post the result once the second part is complete. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Usually I would agree, however: most elections do not have daily political violence in the lead up nor the real possibility of an armed coup. Furthermore most elections do not have 156 million eligible voters spanning a large percentage of a whole continent. If anything this result will increase the amount of incidents in between rounds. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point, but would those day-to-day events be significant enough to feature on the main page? Keep in mind we have ongoing wars with thousands of deaths that never make the main page.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is a coup then of course that it would be considered, regardless of everything else. So far, however, the only thing we got are leaked private conversations (which were about personal preferences and not actual plans), and excessive precautions. Lula asked the US to immediately recognize the winner (a part that the article did not mention), and the US accepted, for fear of an incident similar to that of Trump... and because it's the standard procedure, anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If violence is part of the significance of this item, then it should probably be included in the blurb. It would be nice if we could quantify the violence. This does warm me up for an ongoing spot. That being said, the violence should probably be quantified better in the lede of the article. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Do it when the second election is held and we have a definitive winner. Otherwise, we would have to post this twice this month. And that time, please use the full names, "Lula Da Silva" and "Jair Bolsonaro", not just "Lula" and "Bolsonaro". Cambalachero (talk) 12:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree about using full names. Trillfendi (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – From what I've seen, Lula's success has come as a surprise, possibly significant enough in itself for a blurb – especially since Brazil is far and away South America's most populous country. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the other way. Polls before the election announced that Lula would win by a landslide, way ahead of Bolsonaro, and even enough to win without a runoff election. Although he won, he did so by a lower margin than expected, as Bolsonaro got more votes than expected. He was even wining when the first partial results were announced! Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. ;-) ... But still seems significant. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wait for the run-off.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Douglas Kirkland

 * Posted Stephen 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shirley Englehorn

 * Support - looks good. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support looks ready. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 19:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Laurence Silberman

 * Support There's a CN tag in the "Academic career". But the article is in great shape. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a CN tag because I wasn't able to find a source to support the claim that he had written In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001. Other than that, the article looks great.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: I resolved the CN tag, and everything else seems to be in order. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sacheen Littlefeather

 * Support Her article is ready to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Excellently written article about an outstanding individual, it's ready to go! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Her death has been widely covered in WP:RS and the article is in a good state. <b style="color: #ea5a5a;">Tartar</b>Torte 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted already by another admin. --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Darshan Dharmaraj

 * Article is a stub, mostly just a filmography list. Not sure this meets on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's still early. This wikibio still has quite a few days of eligibility remaining. Let's assume User:Titanciwiki and others will beef it up in the next few days. -- PFHLai (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not much improvement over the past 5 days. Still rather stubby. --PFHLai (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: Mahsa Amini protests

 * Oppose because the blurb fell off ITN 3 days ago, and we didn't post it to Ongoing when that happened. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Items don’t get automatically posted to ongoing when they drop off. They need a separate nomination, which is exactly what this is. Stephen 00:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is being actively maintained and the ongoing protests are clearly still of an appropriate level of significantness. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support definitely ongoing and constantly in the news Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The protests are still ongoing & still in the news. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Protests are still ongoing indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted as ongoing – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Significant. – Sca (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Further coverage:    -- Sca (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 London Marathon

 * Comment This is on WP:ITNR, so no comparisons to Berlin needed (which incidentally was only posted indirectly because of the world record).—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now pending sourced prose on the actual race and results.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: i have added to the nomination the article creator and the editor who posted the results., if an editor eventually updates the article with a race summary, could you add that updater to the nomination and mark the nomination as updated?  thanks in advance.  dying (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the race summary section hasn't been updated, though; in fact, is still using future tense.  for comparison,  is how the summary for last year's race looked like when the associated blurb was .  dying (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the tense issues and updated who of the expected competitors actually ran but a prose summary is still required. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted, prose summary was added. Stephen 01:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe

 * Oppose and snow close  not ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Events that are in a class covered by ITNR but not an ITNR themselves are not immediately disqualified from being posted, just they have the usual ITNC process to review. M asem (t) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. -- Sca (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What/whom is it you are agreeing with by the way? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to snow close. A recurring event can't become ITN/R until it passes ITN as a regular candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Likewise I do not see why this should be closed just because it's not ITN/R. If we did that nothing would ever get posted bar a small handful of ever-diminishing number of recurring events.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what you cannot deny is that a sporting event is not the same as a political or scientific event. These last ones can be debated (as it has happened in so many other occasions correctly) and come to the conclusion that in spite of not being listed as ITNR, they might be notorious. But in sporting events, more simply, if they are no longer ITNR, they can hardly be ITN. I remind again that not everything that’s in the news, should be proposed here. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, all items can be ITN if they are not ITN/R, just as all items can be reasonably debated; that is a core principle of Wikipedia. We also should not be weighting different topics differently either, that us a very slippery slope and poor precedent to set. If you object to the notability of the event then please state your case why, rather than trying to force through a blanket oppose with little merit. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ITN/R is a page designed for more easily pushing through items. You cannot use it to argue that something shouldn't be featured. Is what you intended to say simply "I do not believe this event is at the level of importance required for ITN"? If so, I would like to know more about how it compares with other horse racing events and why it's so much less important. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97: You have it totally backwards. Items cannot be added to ITN/R until they have been nominated and posted through ITN. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  12:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for the clarification. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality and significance. Contrary to the nomination text, most of the article is completely unreferenced and is quite short for a race that dates back to 1920. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 23:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Multiple "This section does not cite any sources" banners. Not appropriate for ITN if the article is not of sufficient quality. Not comment on significance. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The nomination should actually be for 2022 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, not the generic race page. In any event, that 2022 page is a stub, so fails on quality. I'm also not hearing arguments on why this is significant for posting.—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose What Aslor is getting at (I think) is a general consensus about how we treat sports with many top-tier events. We don't want any sport to have lots of posts simply because of a lack of consensus about which event is premier. Historical discussions have pared horse racing to four ITN/R events, while explicitly excluding very prominent races (Santa Anita, Belmont and Preakness) to keep the number down. While consensus can change, this event's absence at ITN/R is a reflection of community consensus of its relative insignificance.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is circular reasoning. Again, an item doesn't get nominated for ITN/R unless it passes the significance test at ITN/C by showing it has been posted at least a couple of times. And its absence from ITN/C (and by extension ITN/R) in the past does not necessarily mean it's insignificant, but could simply be that someone who had interest in the subject matter finally came along and decided to argue for its posting. I remember in the past that we didn't have any sumo-related items on ITN/R until someone decided to step up and nominate the yokozuna promotions on ITN/C. It was interesting and unusual, and something that none of us had really considered before. We're not omniscient. 🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be circular reasoning if I was making that argument you suggest I am.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ramzan Kadyrov

 * Strong oppose on the following:
 * 1. Cannot see the ITN/R rationale anywhere.
 * 2. Nominated article is about an individual not an event.
 * 3. Threats of nuclear aggression are an ongoing Russian propaganda tool since February invasion, and arguably since the start of the Cold War.
 * 4. Covered in ongoing.
 * 5. Lacks any significance; all talk no action.
 * 6. Sources only mention this remark in passing, and not widely commented upon elsewhere.
 * Abcmaxx (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is clearly not ITNR. I've removed that from the nom template. --PFHLai (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close simply not. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Snow close Per above. This is just one of many comments made by various Russian officials during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ITN is clearly not the place to feature this. Gust Justice (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) 2022 Latvian parliamentary election

 * Oppose for now This is ITNR, but the article, specifically the aftermath section, will need some expansion before being posted. Also the blurb should use the term "plurality" rather than minority. Gust Justice (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded and Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality. Lots of stats not nearly enough prose. Only 1 sentence of aftermath. Very little background and given inflation, energy and national security crises currently ongoing in Latvia, as well as language and ethnic tensions and refugee crises due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these really need to be added to the article and their effect on the election. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support once expanded looks like the article is in the process of being improved. also prefer the alt blurb. e.b. (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support ALT1 once expanded. ALT1 is more clear of what the result actually was. Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality I've added some Cn tags and there are tables that have no citation either. The "Results" section needs to have prose. This article needs one more push to be ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – The Union of Greens and Farmers will not support a government led by New Unity leader Krišjānis Karinš, Aivars Lembergs says. – Sca (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Article looks quite decent, especially once I found the Aftermath section at the bottom, but I feel like it wouldn't look good to ITN an article with an "Update" template header at the top. We feature articles here because they are updated with the most recent information. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 08:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Made changes Haris920 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Will work on this now to try and save it from becoming stale. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added prose to the results section mainly by folding the Aftermath section into it and expanding upon that (the Aftermath section wasn't actually about the aftermath of the election, it was all just the results). I also fixed all the cn issues. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the Aftermath section, consisting of coalition negotiations. Curbon7 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Brazilian general election

 * Wait for results and nominate them as blurb, not ongoing. a! rado (C✙T) 09:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just post the results the first round results are in. I don't recall having an ongoing section for the French Presidential election which is similar to this. Haris920 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, this nothing like the French election. Brazil is a much larger country both in terms of population and area, therefore the gap between the two rounds is much longer. Very different circumstances of the candidates and background to this election too. Furthermore and most importantly, France did not have a president that would realistically decline to recognise the results if lost and threaten reinstate a military dictatorship. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait let's see if the 2nd round is needed first; then given the particular set of circumstances this would qualify in between the rounds to have it as ongoing. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose as ongoing Unless the result of the second round is particularly close. Obviously if a candidate wins a majority in the first round, then the article should be posted per ITNR. Gust Justice (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait Until theres results, theres nothing to blurb/post; if Lula wins outright, it should just be a blurb; if a second round is needed, given the high profile of this election and the vitriol coming from the candidates and thier supporters, I think ongoing would be warrented. (this is not to say that 2 round election cycles should generally be nominated for ongoing between the votes) ✨ <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   18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 World Rally Champions

 * Support for the alternative blurb with notability on the age. Compared with the other FIA sanctioned top-tier racing series, the F1, Sebastian Vettel's age was above 23 when he became a champion. 86.50.68.196 (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support great quality article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not seeing any coverage in the news media (unlike F1) and so it's not "in the news". For example, Dirtfish is a driving school! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, major media like BBC, Reuters do report the event, just hours late. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – Absent from main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to question the ITNR-appropriateness, that's something to discuss at the talk page. --M asem (t) 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Major world sports event, and more so in motorsport, just behind F1; so even if this was true then it would be more a reflection of the state of sports reporting rather than anything else. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Page looks to be in good shape, reported at BBC and Reuters. Youngest world champion is significant enough to make the blurb but I'm not sure it needs a link. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is looking good, nice work! Having the featured list bolded as well is a nice touch (though looking at it, I'm not big on how that list is formatted...) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * support. itn/r states that "events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined", so this seems like the right time to post, rather than when the season finishes.  the age record also gives us a good opportunity to link to a featured list.  dying (talk) 08:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:EGG comment In the alt blurb, the link of "the youngest World Rally Champion" is MOS:EGG when the underlying list does not show the drivers' ages. The fact that she is the youngest is already captured in 2022 World Rally Championship.—Bagumba (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The age list is covered at List_of_World_Rally_Championship_records. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixing MOS:EGG by adding an age section. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like someone objected and has removed it from List of World Rally Championship Drivers' champions.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Hurricane Ian

 * Oppose - Hurricane that was and isnt a hurricane anymore therefore not ongoing. These happen all the time and yes people get caught up in them... It already got a blurb which is more than what the average cyclone gets (even when it is a cat 4-5 storm hitting settled areas).✨ <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   02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." - We did the same thing for Idai in 2019 for the same reason, which didn't roll off as fast as this storm is going to. This is still very much in the news as it is feared that hundreds may be dead. We should keep it as an ongoing while these searches are turning up dozens of bodies a day. <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 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Pretty sure natural disasters don't go in ongoing. Per 4amking, it isn't even a hurricane anymore so there is zero point in adding it to ongoing. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We have done it before. See no reason why we should kick an item that is clearly in the news off the ITN box. The storm itself is dead, yes, but the search for remains and survivors is very much ongoing and being covered in the news. There have been thousands of rescues and dozens of bodies uncovered each day. <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 03:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For that storm, at the time it fell off ITN, it was still a storm and still causing destruction. Ian has petered out, no one is expected it to cause further damage, so it would not be required for ongoing in terms of covering the long-tail of aftermath. M asem (t) 14:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn't posted to ongoing because it was still a storm (it was only a remnant low by that time). It was posted (and survived a removal nom after it had fully dissipated) because of the long-tail. Perhaps the better argument here is the scale of Idai was larger.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that's the case. It's simply that southeastern Africa is less developed and has worse infrastructure and no way to deal with the aftermath of a storm. The days of a hurricane killing thousands in the mainland US are over because of infrastructure improvements and the government's ability to handle the aftermath of a storm. The scale of impact is similar, but less people died as a result of the US being able to evacuate and rescue people whereas that was not the case in Africa with Idai. There's still 10,000 people unaccounted for and a massive hunt for remains and survivors going on in Florida. The scale of the search operations are quite similar, however, less people will die in this case. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, we just hit 100 deaths in Florida with more expected as searches continue. That's the highest amount of deaths in a single mainland US state from a hurricane for quite some time, especially considering the amount of preparations and building codes that have been implemented in Florida to prevent disasters like this. Most US hurricanes don't even reach 100 deaths and their impacts are spread out amongst multiple states, so to get 100 in a single state speaks to how bad the situation there is. <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 21:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now I'd rather just expand ITN to five blurbs for a few days than move Hurricane Ian to ongoing. I'll revisit this if it looks like three blurbs are going to be posted imminently. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Is it ongoing? Yes. Is it notable and in the news? Yes. Significant impact? Yes. Article quality? Fine. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article states "Hurricane Ian was'..." and "Dissipated: 2 October 2022". So no, it’s not longer ongoing. The fact that I will no longer be in MP is circumstantial. It is what it is as new entries have been included. That doesn’t make it any less noticeable (this is why it was posted days ago). Just do not overload the Main Page either with it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose the article is for the hurricane itself, which is no longer ongoing. i think it makes more sense to keep updates on search and rescue to the current events tab, which is the norm for most disasters natural and otherwise. e.b. (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - We've already posted a blurb on the impact of the hurricane.--🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – All over but the shouting. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noah that larger storms should be considered for ongoing during the "long tail" period, but the article does not demonstrate that significant events/updates are still happening.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sylvia Wu

 * Long enough with 400+ words of prose. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. Earwig has found nothing wrong. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted, just reviewed this for DYK and it looks fine - Dumelow (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962)

 * Support, I've tidied up the referencing a bit, looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium stampede

 * Comment second deadliest football-related incident in history (unless you count the Football War). Juxlos (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Further comment requesting article protection. There has been a wave of editors with very poor grasps of English attempting to edit the article and move it around, generally with noticeable slant of POV. Juxlos (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for request non-user/IP-only editors started changing death toll numbers without giving reliable news source or proper context. Dhio (talk?) 06:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (Update: vandalism incoming. Dhio (talk?) 07:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC))
 * Requesting on WP:RPP ✅. — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 08:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very unfortunate event. I'm speechless. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Dhio (talk?) 01:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the death toll increased to 153, according to latest reports. Might be appropriate to consider modifying the blurb as "At least 153 people are killed in ......" and so on (emphasis to at least). Dhio (talk?) 02:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Pretty serious accident with significant death toll. And to think, just over soccer... what a crazy world. So unnecessary. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support worst football incident in asia ever, worst football incident since 1964, worst human stampede in several years. so sad. e.b. (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Article is sufficiently expanded to cover the basics of the event. --M asem (t) 01:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong support Extremely deadly disaster and the article is in good shape. Mount Patagonia  (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * support. clearly significant.  article quality already exceeds the .  dying (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is a Must Post. Why are we waiting? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support I'm from Indonesia, and this is a very serious and significant event. 153 dead, just because a football team lost, is a HUGE disaster. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ   (Talk)  03:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait The article is not ready to be put on the front page, there are too many grammatical errors. Mlb96 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see them. Example? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Wait, but support if more update sufficient They stated that 130 people are killed now, no longer 129. Here's the source 125.167.57.167 (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 182 and climbing now. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Tagging as ready. If there are errors in the article, tag the article per se. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Even deadlier than Hillsborough. But is it really confirmed, the number 182? — Angga (formerly Angga1061) 05:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The number is confirmed, according to this report in Indonesian (supposedly the first to write so; other news websites in Indonesian are following suit) and this report from WaPo (quoting an Arema FC tweet). Dhio (talk?) 05:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This is the second deadliest football-related disaster ever in the world. That shows a true significance. Chongkian (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- added Altblurb; specifying association football. Maybe not necessary, but it can provide some clarification for those of us who read "football" and think gridiron football. Rest in peace to all the victims. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  07:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Posted I've posted the altblurb.  Schwede 66  08:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment is it worth linking the Super East Java Derby in the blurb somewhere as well? Maybe for the word "match"? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support – Very widely covered.   – Sca (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Blurb edit request: seems that there are corrections on the death toll, so it's still around 125-131 according to officials like the Vice Governor and the Chief of the Nat'l Police. Both stated that miscalculations had/might've happened from double records for single individuals. So, instead of "at least 182 people..", "at least 125 people..." might be better. Dhio (talk?) 13:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. See the update at WP:ERRORS. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)