Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/September 2023

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

(Posted) RD: Russell Sherman

 * Support I added one cn tag, but it's still of acceptable quality right now, one cn tag shouldn't prevent it from being posted. (I think I found the NYT article that was used as a ref for that statement, but it doesn't confirm the info it was next to). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I added you to updaters, for finding refs when I was too tired! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD CN tag has been resolved.  Spencer T• C 04:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alison Quentin-Baxter

 * Support Looks good to me. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article appears sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Looks fine. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Maldivian presidential election

 * There’s not a single word written about who has won the runoff. The prose stops with the first round held on 9 September.  Schwede 66  19:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality article is not in good condition: there are paragraphs and lines without sources, missing sections such as "Campaign" and "Aftermath", lack of prose in the results section (which should narrate both the first round and the run-off), as well as a "Background" section that details more about the political situation of the country at the time these presidential elections were called and held. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once expanded per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality the "Campaign" section really should be expanded. Additionally several uncited paragraphs. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above; the campaign and aftermath sections are minimal. The   Kip  17:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 AFL Grand Final

 * Oppose on quality The Match Summary section still has basically empty subsections, and the article is still quite table-heavy. ChaotıċEnby ( talk ) 16:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment table heavy is fine, but we need at least a brief summary of the match and a check for citations. I see some unreferenced statements in the article, in addition to things like the attendance. cc Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Australian football is a redirect to the correctly named Australian rules football Chrisclear (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect: the sport is officially named "Australian football".  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've used "Australian rules football" for the blurb because that's what our article is titled. This might be worth a move discussion at Talk:Australian rules football? Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For context, Australian football is the official name, Australian rules football is the common name. Steelkamp (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have gone through the article and it is now fully referenced. Match summary has been filled in by other editors. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, article has been extensively improved and is now up to scratch. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted, knowing that this is ITNR, and with kudos to for the article's significantly improved quality. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Glenn Bujnoch

 * Weak oppose There is one unsourced sentence in the Professional career section. Also there should probably be a source for the information in the infobox and his DoB. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @MonarchOfTerror: I've added sources to the cn tag, infobox and DoB. I've marked as ready, but if you have any concerns, lmk. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Good work. I'm switching to weak support, the article is still fairly short and kind of stubby but at least everything sourced, so I'll consider it very barely acceptable for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: Added sources. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pat Arrowsmith

 * Oppose for now needs a bit of citation work, but it's close to readiness (in my opinion). ❤History  Theorist❤  05:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nearly ready I’ve placed two citation needed tags.  Schwede 66  19:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replaced one of the {cn} tags with a footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 05:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence with the other {cn} tag. I have trouble believing it was "the only time in modern history". Unable to verify that by Googling. So, no {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support seems good and ready. Nice work. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted  Schwede 66  06:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(RD Posted) RD: Dianne Feinstein

 * I see a handful of unsourced placed in "Early Political Career" but otherwise close. M asem (t) 13:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support p  b  p  13:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support- Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - article seems sourced now. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How do we feel about a blurb? She was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in American politics for decades, and remained both up until she died. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell did not get a blurb because people on here thought they weren't internationally known enough (which is crazy), so I don't think she makes the cut. I think McCain got one? RBG definitely did. The blurb guidelines really need some consistency. -- jonas (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a related discussion at —Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Covers the entirety of her life in detail; facts are cited.  Bremps  ...  14:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Relatively well cited for its size, but I've added Cn's for a few uncited larger passages.—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I've added numerous citations, including for the cn tags @Bagumba added. Marking as ready. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 14:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks to be well cited now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb - notable in US, unknown outside the country. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting a blurb Noah, AATalk 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Somebody did above. —Bagumba (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD. — xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD image Davey2116 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Article looks good, that is why it has been posted in the RD. And that's enough for a senator. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb As far as I can tell, this person was not a head of state or head of government. There would be close to zero chance of this being considered for a blurb if she was from another country. In fact, most people would have the common sense not to start a discussion about a possible blurb for such a person. Chrisclear (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Mastung bombing

 * Support very sad news, and there's a lot of sourcing to back up the event and the article. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb when the article is improved sufficiently. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Count went up to over 50 deaths :( Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 12:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Biggest attack in Mastung area to date, and the death tolls are rising. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2018 bombing killed far more people, but this one is still easily important enough to post. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose only on quality - background needs sourcing and could be expanded just a notch to explain the origin of the hostilities. --M asem (t) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait This is a complex and contentious part of the world, per WP:ARBIPA, and no-one has claimed responsibility. We are therefore not in a position to explain who dunnit and so should wait until the speculation resolves. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's easily important enough to post, regardless of the ideology or identity of the bomber. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neither of the proposed blurbs engages in this kind of speculation, only mentioning "a suicide bomber" without connecting the incident to any ideology or organization. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no hard evidence that it was a suicide bombing. It might have been a proxy bomb, a false flag operation, a premature detonation or other malfunction.  It's speculation and jumping to conclusions.  See WP:DELAY.
 * Note also that Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians has now been pulled from ITN because of a NPOV dispute. That's another contentious part of the world and so there are similar sanctions per WP:CT/A-A.  In such cases, one is supposed to "err on the side of caution".
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Many RS describe it as a suicide bombing; none describe it as any of your alternative suggestions. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems ready.  Bremps  ...  14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted per support above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed, stale) Murder of Tupac Shakur indictment

 * Wait until the verdict. It will still be a story then. Tone 07:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait until the verdict. Then it'll be worthy of ITN. I feel like posting this now might violate BLP anyway. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose it's not the right time. Snow close because the tendency (with unexplained exceptions) is to wait until the defendant's conviction. It will then, most likely, be ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In line with all of my previous opposes for indictment/charges and contradiction of BLP spirit. Though a conviction if it happens would definitely be considerable. Gotitbro (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Rotterdam shootings

 * oppose 2 peeps is too few Daikido (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * support A shooting like this is very rare in a country like the Netherlands as well as Europe. Coldbolt (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose because attacks with this death toll or higher happen every day somewhere. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not in the Netherlands, not in Europe. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't post something that's common in some countries just because it's unusual in the country it occurred in. Something like this wouldn't be posted had it happened anywhere in Africa, Asia or the Americas (except perhaps Canada). Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, WP:ignore all precedent and so on, but we just refused to post an event unprecedented in its country largely because it would have been "commonplace" "in any other country" - your words. —Cryptic 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * totally comparable situations. For sure! _-_Alsor (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So what's your bar for what's notable for posting in the US vs. elsewhere? Cryptic makes a valid point that you're not addressing. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is not absolut like that. For example, a strike in the US is more common than a shooting and arson attack in a public place in Europe. So simple, clear and easy to check. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- this is not a mass shooting by definition. This is a spree shooting, but at only 3 deaths I don't think it's notable enough for posting on ITN. For me, a bare minimum for posting a shooting is that the event satisfies the criteria of a mass shooting. Aside from that, this type of thing happens everywhere. It is irrelevant that it's happening in the Netherlands instead of another country. Notability is not (or should not) be tied to location. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose appears to be a domestic crime with no ties to terrorism. --M asem (t) 21:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support highly unusual for Europe (unlike, say, the US, or the Disputed Zones of Burkina Faso), and noting that per WP:ITNCDONT, Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country.  Serial  21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I read part of ITNCDONT as also saying that an item shouldn't be supported solely because of where it's happening. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * then we would be undermining one of the main characteristics that identify the concept of "notoriety" and "newsworthiness". _-_Alsor (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then, I don't see how it's more relevant that it took place in the EU vs. in the US. There are many parts of the US with little gun crime. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But it's something as simple as knowing and understanding that at the national level it is not like that in the US. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Again that's the issue with systemic bias. ITN is already pretty biased towards Europe (and the US) in several regards, so having this be news even though it would not be news in another country absolutely contributes to that bias. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * this tbh Daikido (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The word news comes from the plural of "new" and means "new things", and usually involves something that "deviates from the norms of everyday happenings". A shooting in Chicago is not news because it's not so unusual, it's not such a deviation from the norm (in fact a lack of shootings in Chicago would be more likely to make the news). Same with terrorism in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Not to say that this particular shooting is newsworthy, but as an explanation of supposed systemic bias, the news is by definition new things that deviate from the norm, which is why a shooting in a low-crime area is more notable than a shooting in a high-crime area. JM2023 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Would support this if it carried weightage (links to terrorism or other high profile relations etc.) but so far that is not the case. The killings in Sweden appear to be at a higher point of notability than these but those too are just the result of local gang wars. We are better off not posting crimes which have no additional significance other than their occurence. Gotitbro (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and SNOW close. We shouldn't support something just because of where it happened, even if it carries some weight. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Jalapeño Elisecars727 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ganira Pashayeva

 * Support - article is pretty sparse, but what is there is all sourced ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled from RD/Discussion regarding blurb continues): Sycamore Gap Tree

 * Support - poor tree :(  ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because it's a tree JM2023 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support What a shame. The article is of high quality, so this is already ready as far as I am concerned. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support nice tree. AryKun (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I doubt it's dead. Reportedly, Acer pseudoplatanus has "the ability to grow vigorously from the stump when felled". So as long as roots and stump are undamaged, it appears this is still alive. Brandmeistertalk  16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good catch. I may have to retract my support. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This article from The Guardian also expresses doubt on whether the tree's actually dead. —Cryptic 18:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Loss of an iconic tree and the media is stating that everyone is left speechless and furious. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 17:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is where we are, huh? I know RD says that any living organism with an individual article counts, but man... Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper - (talk)  17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well a tree is a living organism so it goes PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yes I know, It is a tree, but RD is for any individual organism, not just people. RIP tree.Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral Depends on whether the stump left is enough for it to regrow, really. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * would you do the admin please? Mjroots (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Are you fucking joking? A fucking tree? 184.179.169.144 (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We are fucking serious. RD is for any person or organism that has died. Noah, AATalk 20:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN is very serious business PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support
 * RIP Robin Hood Tree. Gone, but not forgotten PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * IAR Post-Posting Support. Yes, the tree may not be dead, but the tree, even if it grows back, will not look the same, and being photogenic is what the tree was known for. So perhaps the tree is not TECHNICALLY dead, but something has certainly been lost here. Just let it ride. This isn't as silly as the duck situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Retrospectively agree with the decision. This tree had massive importance and its felling was an unfortunate and disastrous event, whether it will be able to regrow or not. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "the duck situation", some of us are in need of an ITN history lesson? JM2023 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There was some controversy over if a duck should be posted. The duck didn't end up getting posted and the discussion ended up being closed with no consensus developing. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue there was whether or not the duck actually died rather than controversy about a duck being posted. Noah, AATalk 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair that was kind of the situation here too. Is the tree really dead or just chopped down? Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That kinda was part of the issue. I still maintain that a university - nor anyone else - can declare a duck dead in abstentia. At least in this situation we can see the tree, and maybe it's not dead, but it certainly won't be the same. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally would've been happier with a blurb. Besides resolving the ambiguity of whether it actually died - we'd just say it was "felled" or "cut down", like our sources do - this tree's felling changed the world, in a way that the deaths of most of the people we blurb, who have been retired for five or ten years, do not. —Cryptic 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Put me down as Oppose Blurb as well per Rockstone a little ways down. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I might be in the minority here, but, I think we have taken this a tad too far, with a very open read of “organism”. In some sense it might be a disrespect to the others on the RD carousel as well. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw it might be worthwhile to inspect where the term “organism” came into the template and the criteria. I am reading the past RFCs and it seems like the discussion was very specifically about “Animals”. I think introduction of “organisms” was an overzealous act. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Trees were specifically discussed. Thincat (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support and I would IAR support an RD image for this too. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - The felling of this tree reminds me of The Senator (tree); a 3500 year old bald cypress tree that was destroyed here in central Florida in an act of vandalism (actually, the woman apparently was smoking meth and burned it down, but that's irrelevant). No idea if we posted it to RD at the time, but if it happened today, it would surely qualify. So, too, does this tree, which seems to be of similar importance. RIP. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That tree appears in Deaths in January 2012. It doesn't seem to have new growth since but 10 clones were taken and it seems that seven survive as new trees. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment we've posted a tree on RD before, if anyone cares. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose Missing ducks and half-dead trees are not "deaths". If the tree was actually dead it would be a support from me, but one rooted still rooted in the ground with quite the possibility of regrowth is not it. DYK would have been the ideal posting for this. Gotitbro (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb This is a clear and devestating event, but I'm not going so far as to make this a blurb due to, I'm afraid, the systematic bias towards US/UK events in English Wikipedia ITN. As for why I support this being RD, living beings, regardless of them being human or not, should be included. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb This is front-page news and it's likely that the tree will grow more shoots, per coppicing. RD is not appropriate for such complex cases.  Why can't we just have a few words to summarise the situation?  ITN has become far too parsimonious and terse compared to other main page sections and it is obstructing clear communication.  Brief blurbs cost nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly say that disasters in which dozens of people were killed aren't important enough to blurb, but you're saying that a tree being cut down is?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew’s ITN contributions are approaching the point of disruptive behavior. The   Kip  13:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Makes no sense to blurb the loss of a famous tree. And given that we are purposely blind to RD posting beyond article quality, many of the RDs we post are people that are likely unknown to a good fraction to the readers so being able to click through to read about them is appropriate - same with this case. M asem (t) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus to post this has already been established and this has been done. The issue is doing so in a clear and accurate way.  There's already a complaint at WP:ERRORS that the RD entry is wrong . Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeking for it to be pulled from RD; I'm questioning why you think it blurb-worthy. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me count the ways:
 * It was the top news story on the BBC yesterday.
 * It was still a top news item getting continuing coverage in the midday bulletin today
 * It was on the front pages when I checked the newsstand today. And not just a sidebar – the entire front page.
 * It got about 150,000 views yesterday. That's about ten times more than the Qaraqosh wedding fire, for example.
 * The article was written by whose work is always excellent in my experience.
 * This was a Tree of the Year – a rare distinction
 * There are lots of beautiful and iconic pictures of it and, as a blurb, we could use one (see above).
 * With blurb text rather than a bare link, we can better explain what has happened
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Bob Saget & Anne Heche received extremely high pageviews last year. We didn't blurb their deaths. Tree of the Year is a trivial domestic award. You regard this tree being cut down as more notable than the Qaraqosh fire? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's day 3 and the tree is still in the top 10 most read articles on Wikipedia. The wedding fire not so much.  The latter seems to be a standard WP:NEWSEVENT while the tree has got and is getting continuing coverage.  For example, this latest development is currently the top read story at BBC News.  Other related encyclopedic topics like Hadrian's Wall, Robin Hood and coppicing are getting significantly more attention too. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, we do not consider page views, popularity or fame for ITN items, we have rejected the idea of being TOP25. We are looking for encyclopedic content as well as significance; that is not to say that the felling of a tree could not be either but the bar for that is going to be pretty high, and more that just being a "famous" tree. M asem (t) 20:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The question was the notability of the tree versus the notability of the wedding fire. The evidence is that the tree is the more notable topic.  If Masem has some other evidence, they should please present it.  If they are saying that ITN doesn't care about evidence and just prefers personal opinions, they should please see core policies such as WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * popularity isn't notability. Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The question wasn’t notability, the question was blurb-worthiness. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I ask again, have you ever in your life read WP:POPULARPAGE and did you understand it?
 * Will you ever understand that page views and fame don’t matter here? The   Kip  13:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Convert to a blurb about the act of vandalism. The tree is not dead so it shouldn't be posted as a death, but this well known tree being vandalized seems significant.  I think if the General Sherman tree was cut down by vandals or even spray painted, we would at least consider posting it. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position, if this is not blurbed, it should be removed from RD, since the tree is not dead. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Felling" is not equivalent to death. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support converting to blurb. The article is higher quality than most we post here, and it makes a nice change from the normal disaster stubs we post. BilledMammal (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb. I've added a (felled) note to the RD entry to clarify the concern that it's not actually dead. As for a blurb, I think that's over the top, per other comments made above. It's no doubt sad for those who enjoy the view in that part of the world, but with everything else going on in the world, this is emphatically not a story of lasting significance. Trees also get felled in other parts of the world too, e.g. Cotton Tree (Sierra Leone) earlier this year and we don't blurb those, so there's a WP:WORLDWIDE issue to consider here too. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Was the Cotton Tree nominated? "Everything else going on in the world" is precisely the reason to blurb this, not to refrain from doing so. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Cotton Tree was posted to RD. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Lahaina Banyan Tree was in the news recently too – I noticed the coverage at the time. IMO, such trees are more historic and significant than the routine sporting events that ITN runs as blurbs.  But we have space for all – blurbs are not such a precious and limited resource – we could easily run several fresh blurbs every day, just like the other main page sections. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well blurbs are limited to four at a time, so yeah, they are a limited resource by definition. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 23:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as nominator, but consider an IAR image posting. Mjroots (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Death is the biological end of a life. Is this tree biologically dead? No. Then it’s not a "recent death" because it is not dead. If it can grow, it’s alive. And if it’s alive…it’s not dead. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - I would support either the RD or blurb. The tree was technically "felled" but colloquially it is "dead". If someone wants to quibble about it being "dead", then a blurb is the way to go.
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: the RD item was tweaked so that it now reads "Sycamore Gap Tree (felled)". Also, there is a parallel discussion happening at WP:ERRORS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb A tree being felled isn’t important enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose / pull Not dead. It's a species that's notable for being receptive to coppicing. Also, shoehorning this into a section for people (and occasionally animals) who've actually recently died also seems a bit tasteless to me. I love trees, I get that people love trees, but there's a place for this, and this isn't it. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull / Oppose blurb Not dead, and there's no reason a tree should get a blurb if literal ethnic cleansing of 90,000+ people doesn't. That's pretty much adding insult to injury. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 23:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * STRONG OPPOSE BLURB - for the avoidance of all doubt, I'm fine with an RD entry, but a blurb is ridiculous, and if we did blurb this, it'd be the biggest example of systemic UK bias on ITN that I can think of (no, we would not be blurbing this if it happened anywhere else). -- Rockstone Send me a message!  23:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See the Pioneer Cabin Tree – a sequoia in California which was posted in 2017. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well... you're right, nice find, and I stand corrected. But I still don't think it should be blurbed. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * pull. i think there was a consensus to post early on, when many of us had believed that the tree had died, but now that it is clear that the tree had only been felled, and also has a decent chance of regrowing, i don't think it is appropriate to keep it in the list of recent deaths.  to be clear, had the tree actually died, i would have thought that its death would have been appropriate for the list.the arguments that the tree is effectively dead enough for the list make me worried, as they could also be used to argue that people in deep comas who may be described as "virtually dead", or that people who underwent extensive plastic surgery who may be described as "virtually unrecognizable", would also be eligible for the list.  keeping the tree on the list may validate those arguments and set a weird precedent.i don't think posting a blurb would be a wise idea.  it seems farcical to refuse a blurb for a prominent senator who recently died, only to then turn around and post one for a tree that didn't.  dying (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb It's obviously contentious to post this as RD as technically, the tree isn't dead. The qualifier "(felled)" has been added but for many, that's still not good enough. The status quo works for me, but my preference is to have this as a blurb. Firstly, this is a notable event that's making the news around the world. Secondly, it has a lasting effect, as the area has lost a major tourism item. Thirdly, it overcomes the conundrum whether or not this fits under RD as a blurb can explain in a more nuanced way what's going on. Fourthly, I do not buy into the systemic UK bias issue. That Wanaka Tree got vandalised in 2020 but the tree itself is still standing. Had it been cut down back then, Wānaka would have lost its most-photographed item and I suggest that would have been suitable for a blurb nomination (granted, the UK tree is probably better known). That's a tourism item and some Kiwis might say "so what?". But if something fatal happened to Tāne Mahuta, New Zealand would go into mourning for a week, that's for sure.  Schwede 66  01:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any scenario where a tree being cut down in the US would be posted here in ITN? No. Same if it happened in Canada or Russia. The UK gets special treatment in ITN and the systemic bias here has been a problem for years. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See the Pioneer Cabin Tree – a sequoia in California which was posted in 2017. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting conditional support RD. Regardless of whether it could regrow, it is the end of the tree as we know it. The regrown part would be a new thing/offspring. On the person analogy, you have chopped off everything except the head and put that in a magical vial where it can regrow; 90% is already dead. The fact that the stump is alive and could facilitate regrowth is irrelevant. I support converting to blurb and removing the RD equally, as a blurb would also make this known. To clarify, the condition is that there is no blurb posted. I think either we post a blurb or keep the RD. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , i am not sure if i am understanding you correctly. are you saying that, if a notable person with a quality article on wikipedia was reduced to a head in a magical vial, you would support listing that person at recent deaths?  if that person then died a year later, would you support a second nomination for that person, assuming that the article remains of sufficient quality?  dying (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and if it has no brain. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that the stump is alive is absolutely relevant. It is "recent deaths", not "recent end of organisms as we know them". Should Michael Schumacher have been posted to RD? ChaotıċEnby ( talk ) 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about, how has Schumacher been ended? He's still alive and in full shape, he just dropped his career. If the tree was just relocated in full shape then nobody would put it in RD. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His brain was injured in a skiing accident shortly afterward. Now he doesn't drive, talk or walk. His head and legs are still attached, so I guess that's "full shape", but 2013 marked the end of the man as the people recognized him. It wouldn't be right to call him dead, though, just disabled (or differently abled). Same for similar cases, like latter-day Ronald Reagan. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ahhh... I didn't see that, but yeah they still have their body. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As does this tree, just shorter in the trunk than in its glory days and lacking a crown, like a latter-day Hulk Hogan. As a tree guy, I appreciate how it can be tempting to draw parallels between our lifecycles and theirs, especially since we share the same air and nutrients. But a tree is not a guy, buddy! If this hypothetical and unprecedented magical human "deadhead" does float by this bureau in the future, I say we blurb it first and discuss RD later. Even if he or she wasn't a household name to that point, it's news we can use. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The base is not the body, I'd parallel it to the head. It's not just "shorter". I don't know what happened to Hogan either but he hasn't been criminally amputated AFAIK. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He had a bunch of hip and back surgeries, lost about four legit inches. In his field, four inches counts for a lot more than in Tree's. Trees can take a hell of a licking, next to men, including in proportionate mass loss. The "head", if you insist on analogizing the unanalogizable, is in that cluster of nervelike appendages plants keep underground and drink through. The stump of a stem is like a reduced neck, if necks had aortae, at least in my worldview. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh, interesting worldview you've got there. I have been persuaded and now only support blurb. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, me too. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was less referring to his subsequent long-term disability and more to him falling into a coma immediately after the accident. Sorry for not having been more clear, my point was that if a tree being cut to the stump is counted as "dead", it wouldn't be a big step before people falling into a coma without any guarantees (at the time) of waking up would also be counted as "dead". Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comas still have quite a high probability of getting back the original thing but not splitting a base to have new stems grow. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I was talking about immediately after his injury, when he fell into a coma and it wasn't sure whether he would even wake up. With the current arguments, I could absolutely see people arguing that that could count for "recent deaths". Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull from RD. The tree could regrow, but we should wait until it is confirmed that the tree is dead. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull. Tree can't die.
 * If this was blurb, I would understand its proposal.
 * But this is dubious — recent deaths entry Tree (felled). As if someone wonders how tree can tree actually die. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's probably not dead, as pointed out by above. Maproom (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull Tree can die, just alive for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled per above. There is serious doubt that the tree is actually dead. Discussion regarding the suitability of a blurb should continue. As of right now I see no consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. No inference of poor judgement is intended to the posting admin. At the time of posting that was a reasonable read of the existing consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-pulling stong support RD. Even if the tree is able to be coppiced, which is not a certainty, it won't be the same "tree" as what it was when it was felled. There is likely not going to be a better time to post this to RD than now. Happily888 (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "It won't be the same tree" isn't a great argument. With this reasoning, people falling in a coma or having personality-affecting brain injuries could be nominated for RD, which would be honestly absurd. Even if the tree lost its iconic parts, it is still the same organism. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 01:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. In the case of a tree, the part which makes it notable (the trunk/branches) is what died. I think it is disingenuous to think that it is a logical step to apply this to a person, if someone has fallen into a coma or has had a brain injury, the majority of the parts which make them notable are still alive. Even if this tree is coppiced, whilst a new replanted tree will have the same DNA as the previous tree, it will not be seen as the exact same tree as the one which has been felled. Happily888 (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the majority of the parts which make them notable are still alive is again a slippery slope. What if a powerlifter lost their arms? If a sprinter lost their legs? Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 03:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, I think Happily888 is trying to say that the tree has "died" in the colloquial sense—the tree that so many people have journeyed to see won't be back in full until after their own deaths. Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "brutally disfigured" supermodels. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am conflicted on this one. I agree that this one does not deserve a posting on the RD carousel. I almost fear that posting this one is disrepectful to the other BLPs that are out there. But, that being said, "organisms" is allowed per the current rules. I was initially wondering if the term "organisms" had snuck in in an overzealous interpretation of the policy. But, upon checking it was seen that the term organisms was specifically added based on a discussion in the RFC. So, if we need to change that a new RFC should be considered. Posting this one might have to be on the current interpretation of the rules and that might allow for this one to be posted onto the RFC carousel. Ktin (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't much of a substantial disagreement on the organism part; most of the disagreement is on whether or not it is dead. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it is not dead — no need to post it. Ktin (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose both It's not dead. It's not PINE-ing – it's not ceased to be, it's still pushing aside the daisies. - SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. The "it is not dead" argument is silly. I know Cat's comment above here is specifically trying to be silly, but the argument that is silly. This is like claiming Henrietta Lacks never died be cause some of her cells continue to grow as the HeLa cell line. The tree is no longer and will never be what it was and so is essentially dead. Perhaps we do not have the proper word for it, because it is not a state we experience, but dead will suffice. Perhaps, you all just do not like having a tree in RD and use this spurious argument because getting what you want is more important then semantics. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several proper words for a state of injury. Some apply better to wood, some to meat, many to either. Personally, I'd like to see more species in this Homo carousel, just not survivors of violent and life-altering crimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'd really like to see more non-human organisms represented in RD (and Wikipedia in general), just not still alive ones in RD. No need for personal attacks and speculation please.
 * In terms of actual arguments, "essentially dead" doesn't mean dead, and, while I agree that we don't have a specific word for this situation in humans, it's also why the comparison with Henrietta Lacks falls flat. Especially given that we know what "dead" means for a tree, and this isn't it. As regretful as the situation is, it isn't a death. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think that’s right. I’ve opposed because the tree still lives and will likely regrow. You can’t list a Recent Death if there is no death. I’ve opposed a blurb on several grounds, not least of which is that it doesn’t reach the level (for me) of global events on which we should be reporting. - SchroCat (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Edited to readjust slightly with addition of "likely". - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no certainty that it "will regrow", see here: "The National Trust and Northumberland national park hope the tree might regrow,… but the age of the tree might make this difficult." If in about a year's time, it is announced that the tree hasn't regrown, would opposing users in this discussion support posting this then? How long should be waited before determining whether an organism is 'dead'? Happily888 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added "likely" to regrow, but that doesn't counter the fact that the tree is still not dead. As to the question "how long should be waited...", then it's nowt to do with WP or ITN: as always we go with repeating what the reliable sources say. At the moment they say it's still alive, but once they change, that's a discussion for a different day. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - does Wikipedia use brain death or biological death to determine if a subject has died? If the former, then I am comfortable posting the tree as a recent death, because it's effectively the same thing as brain death. If the latter, then it shouldn't be posted. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  21:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per usual, it depends who shows up. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these appear to be posted RDs, though not because it’s just a brain death. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There were also differing opinions on latter-day Tom Petty and Tanya Roberts, whose hearts had stopped beating, with organs kept oxygenated on life support. I think we follow the sources, not biology. When RS call a death, fine; when they backpedal, so be it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's something that never was really stated upon, and honestly, absolutely deserves to be clarified in the RD guidelines. Both for humans/animals and for trees. Chaotıċ<span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(30deg)">Enby ( talk ) 22:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * plants are different. coppicing doesn't kill the individual. Secretlondon (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Regrowing through coppicing would take centuries, that’s like being in cryo <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sapling planted at Sycamore Gap removed by National Trust See here: "A man who planted a sapling at the site where the Sycamore Gap tree previously stood at Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland has said it is “devastating” that it has been removed. The National Trust dug up the young sycamore planted by 27-year-old Kieran Chapman metres away from the stump of the historic tree, which was illegally felled overnight on Wednesday." Count Iblis (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This, too, shall live. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb A tree getting cut down, no matter how famous, is not a story wide-reaching enough for blurbing. The fact it’s even reached this point feels like a rare genuine example of the oft-cited Anglo-centrism we claim ourselves victims to. Agree with the pull from RD as well, as it’s quite literally not dead. The   Kip  13:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In principle, I don’t see how much worse for posting this is than sporting events on most of your points. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Michael Gambon

 * Oppose RD on quality issues - lack of sourcing throughout body. Oppose blurb as while having received some of the highest awards for acting, there's little given about any impact or legacy he may have had. --M asem (t) 12:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on RD because of sourcing issues throughout the article. While notable I don't think he has significant enough notability to warrant a blurb. Suonii180 (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment One line on his role in The Singing Detective, really? I'd argue that was his best-known performance outside Harry Potter. I would need to see some more detail on that before I could support.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * RD only (sadly), but oppose for the moment on quality grounds. SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * RD only. No comment on quality, haven't had a proper look yet. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lacking proper sourcing. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as I for one think deaths must be exceptional for them to be blurbed -- i.e., the death itself is famous JM2023 (talk) 16:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * support blurb once the issues are fixed, clearly a more notable individual. we've posted that guy who played Snape i think. we should post Dumbledore too since he was arguably a more important character Daikido (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alan Rickman was actually posted to RD only.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Old man dies. Nothing like the importance required for blurb. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't give his woefully-underreferenced filmography a pass just because it was shuffled off to a subarticle, either. —Cryptic 20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was moved off a long time ago. If it was moved off just now to avoid sourcing it, that would be a problem. M asem (t) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't agree. We shouldn't be declining to post RDs or blurbs, either one, just because someone tried to game the system; we should be looking solely at whether the current state of the article(s) is good enough to post. —Cryptic 21:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a couple factors here: If the filmography (or similar list) was undersourced and shuffled off to a separate article when there was no size issues to worry about, that would be a problem, as that's the literal "sweeping dirt under the rug" situation. On the other hand, if that type of list was actually large and the article was nearly WP:SIZE concerns, then shuffling it off wouldn't be a problem, but as Gotitbro states below, there should be a proper sourced summary prose left in place. M asem (t) 13:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If enough prose is there to substitute for it, I don't really see a problem. We have enough list-occupying bios as is. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's stop looking at whether he should have a blurb or not and focus on the quality of the article first. I just orange-tagged it, as it needs some major source work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alsoriano97 also added 45 citation needed – a remarkable display of tag bombing. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At a glance, most of them appear justified. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Evaluate Blurb) RD: M. S. Swaminathan

 * Support - a very well cited article ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Article looks good. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb?. I do not say this often, but, is there an appetite (no pun intended) for blurbing this article? If there has been anyone who has helped millions from hunger and famine, it is him. NYTimes Bio here. Irrespective this is ready for RD. Article looks in good shape. Ktin (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * RD posted Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb His name is not familiar to most and so RD would not do him justice. And it's not as if ITN is overcrowded currently – there are only three blurbs and they are 4+ days old. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a good reason not to blurb? Blurbs should be reserved for well known figures or if the death is the reason for notability. Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is terms like “well known figures” or “not familiar to most” borders on a very ethnocentric read of the world and is not the best way to evaluate impact. If you believe importance and weightage needs to be given to transformational impact — we should evaluate the impact of work. In this case there is a case to be made that elevating millions from hunger and famine is impact like no other. Ktin (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I know the name Norman Borlaug, who is given credit for saving those same lives. As the saying goes, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." I don't know how much credit should go to Swaminathan here, but he was not the primary driver of this effort.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The “I don’t know” of them and hence not worth posting argument is frankly a tad tenuous.
 * I certainly don’t imply that we should go by a particularly news org, like Time in this case, but posting from the article — “ In 1999, he was one of three Indians, along with Gandhi and Tagore, on Time 's list of the 20 most influential Asian people of the 20th century.” Certainly that should mean something. Ktin (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on this person, but was just commenting that his name is not familiar to most does not seem like a good reason to blurb someone. I don't know if ITN has a purpose to "highlight" lesser known figures in blurbs. Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * isn't ITN meant to highlight news stories relevant enough to receive their own articles or at least significant sections? so posting something with the justification of basically "he's not well known"... well that's really the opposite of a justification, isn't it. JM2023 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I agree with both of you. We should not be posting because the subject was not well-known. On the other hand, we should not be not-posting because the subject was not well-known. There are many Rfcs that are pending on this topic, but, as it stands today, with our current policies — we should posting major figures who have demonstrated impact by their work. Call it transformational / groundbreaking / anything else. By those grounds, I think the subject deserves a blurb. We should not mistake opposes to the policy to be opposes to the individual case such as this. Policy opposes should go to the talk page. Ktin (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say “I don’t know of them" so don't misrepresent my argument to counter it. Your repeated claims of "elevating millions from hunger" is clearly an attempt to ascribe to him a greater import to the effort than deserved.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like an argument against blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * For a blurb I feel the article needs a short section under Public Recognition about the green revolution which can borrow content from that article. His role is mentioned in the lede and scattered through but a single brief section of how he came by that term and what it means ands impact on India's ag industry should be clear.--M asem (t) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb blurbs of deaths in my opinion should only be done when the deaths themselves are famous -- all famous people die, but not all people die famously JM2023 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your point of view. The editor below references an RfC that has been some time in coming. In its absence, today, we do not distinguish between famous (sic) people dying and famous people dying famously. Best wishes. Ktin (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Neutral on blurb, would highlight the life of someone with a little-known but massive impact on the fight against hunger, although I agree that blurbs of deaths could be reserved for the deaths themselves making news. I'd say we should have a RfC about this last point, to have an idea of where we stand relative to this in the future (and, depending on the result, Support if non-famous deaths of famous people can be blurbed and Oppose otherwise). Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it. I know that the RfC has been sometime in coming, but, in its absence, I think there is a strong case to be made for this posting. Ktin (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, WP:ITNRDBLURB reads: —Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, and given the repeated discussions (a few days ago with Giorgio Napolitano, now today) often in confusion without clear indication as to what level of notability merits a blurb, I figure it would be better to formalize this more clearly. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb given the current policies until such a discussion concludes. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Certainly transformative and at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Article being a GA pushes this over the edge for me. Absolutely top of his field. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Agree with Curbon here, being a GA definitely does it and we did post Norman Borlaug, it is only good that we follow in with a quality article which highlights thr further building upon his work. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb What RD is for. Making it a blurb would add nothing. As a GA it's still prominently linked in the RD section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. Nigej (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * With due respect, please can you explain why RD is sufficient in this case? Ktin (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per above. RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. (see above for attribution for this comment) &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, with due respect Amakuru, please can you explain why RD is sufficient in this case? Ktin (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Failed. I have not said this so far, but, I think this project has failed its purpose at this point. None of the editors above have had a solid reason for their opposes. Yet, here we are. If we can not blurb a subject who has had transformational impact in lifting millions out of hunger and famine -- I am sorry to say we have no reason to be blurbing any post. Ktin (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say the argument of "he didn't die in a famous way" is solid. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not post any death blurbs simply for being transformative figures. A death blurb isn't some kind of lifetime achievement award. We should only post "death is the story" blurbs. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aaron Liu and @Pawnkingthree -- The problem with both of your views is that they run counter to the current rules. If you really believe that "we should post *only* 'death is the story' blurbs" you should bring it as a proposal. Multiple such proposals have not gone anywhere. The rules as coded right now allows for "major figures" to have their blurbs posted. So, you should evaluate this post as such. Ktin (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. —Cryptic 16:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Since Borlaug was blurbed & it sounds like Swaminathan played a similarly transformative role in the Green Revolution, a blurb seems appropriate. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb I agree with Ktin - if being the reason that millions avoided malnutrition, famine and starvation is insufficient for a person to be blurbed, then what is? One can't help but wonder if there would be more people in support of a blurb if M. S. Swaminathan was American and not Indian. Chrisclear (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Marking read for blurb. Marking ready for blurb with the following rationale -- All the opposes so far have been based on a forward looking want for a policy change (e.g., want for the policy to be changed to *death as the story* etc.). The rules as it is coded right now allows for death of "major figures" to be blurbed. This posting has to be evaluated with that current policy in mind. If we need to change the current policy -- that discussion belongs to an RFC and not to this nomination. With that said, none of the opposes have made the cases that Swaminathan was NOT a "major figure". I am marking this one as ready for blurb. Ktin (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that they may be a major figure, but not enough to warrant a blurb. The policy itself says that major figures that major are rare. Most opposes on death as the story should already IMO operate under the assumption that he is not a major-enough figure. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On policy, what I believe you are referring to says These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Sui generis means "case-by-case" and my interpretation of that is that just that they were by normal means major cannot automatically warrant a blurb, and you are missing consensus here. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I partly agree with what you say here. However, can you give me the rationale for why Swaminathan does not make the cut for a “major figure” who should be blurbed? I don’t see a reason so far. Ktin (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You've got this backwards. It's not that all major figures automatically get blurbs, it's that in rare cases a major figure may merit a blurb. It's up to supporters to make the case, opposers are merely saying that the default position, the RD section is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair assertion. My case is that having saved millions from malnutrition, hunger, and famines — there can not be a greater case for impact. Now, please tell me that that is not the case. I will hold off on making a case that given we blurbed Norman Borlaug, we should have a strong reason not to blurb Swaminathan. Ktin (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant update to this article, not redundant to the blurb, is five words long. We wouldn't blurb the pope's death if his article was in that state. —Cryptic 15:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. Ktin (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "at his home in Chennai". —Cryptic 15:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. You are trolling right now and you do not merit a response. Ktin (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. The person bludgeoning this discussion and the related one at WT:ITN, insisting that since you consider this person to be major and "the rules" say the deaths of major persons may be blurbed all other considerations are invalid, is you.  A substantial update is required by the part of the rules you don't like.  I can say with some confidence that no administrator will post this article as the emboldened link in this state. —Cryptic 16:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please both assume good faith. I believe Ktin’s objection is that you only quoted part of the update, but as the update was only less than 20 new words I wouldn’t call that substantial either. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * His five key words were not redundant to the blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I somehow missed that. Perhaps Ktin missed it as well. <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If it can happen to you, it can happen to anyone, I figure. Anyway, I'll agree that an admin is unlikely to post this September death in October, given how little we all now know about it. But kudos to this old man for a life well lived beforehand! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per the opposes above. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh

 * Ongoing They don't seem to have much choice. Anyway, this development needs consolidating with all the other Nagorno-Karabakh conflict nominations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This is clearly a developing story with multiple implications that merit inclusion on their own, so ongoing is completely justified even though it's a bit challenging to find the right article to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment As the Republic of Artsakh article is oranged-tagged, perhaps an article on the decree itself could be created and added to the blurb. A historic milestone in the decades-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict anyway. The future departure of Russian peacekeepers from the region would probably be the final milestone. Brandmeistertalk  10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until it actually happens. The decree states that all state institutions will dissolve by January 1st, and I think we're a bit off from that date. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait per Iamstillqw3rty. We have three months until it happens, and its clear this region is not currently stable, so things can easily change. --M asem  (t) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment can we somehow merge this proposal with this one below for the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh? It's effectively the same event, the dissolution of the breakaway state with the expulsion of its people. JM2023 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with below proposal. This story really only makes sense in the context of the fleeing of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as Artsakh exists largely because of this group of people. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, if possible also merge per suggestions above. Major development. Yakikaki (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Until it actually dissolves, then, I'll switch to Support. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - Once this actually happens and Azerbaijan actually annexes Artsakh then I would instantly support. Resolution of a 30 year conflict, major change in global geopolitics as a country annexes another country. If situation gains enough coverage and enough new developments happen then I think we could post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge with the current Artsakh ethnic cleansing blurb, perhaps by simply adding as the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh declares its intent to dissolve at the end of it. (According to the end of the discussion for that blurb, the potential merge should be discussed here.) JM2023 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support News will be stale if we wait too long.  Bremps  ...  01:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, dissolution of a country - even a non-internationally recognized one - is a significant event. Oppose merging with the existing blurb; ethnic cleansing is so significant it shouldn't be diluted with other news. BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the dissolution of Artsakh, the nation-state of the Karabakh Armenians, is part of the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Armenians from their nation-state's territory. The nation-state is dissolving because the nation is being ethnically cleansed. JM2023 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah but like. The ethnic cleansing blurb got removed. So not really sure about merging to non-existence... Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 23:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support given the standalone significance, shouldn't be merged with the blurb relative to ethnic cleansing simply because both are about the same country. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 02:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the dissolution of a nation's state is inexorably linked to the exile of that nation from that state's territory. Artsakh is being dissolved because and as part of the ethnic cleansing. JM2023 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree to some extent, but the point is moot given that the other blurb has been removed without any discussion. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the point is moot, I've proposed alt-blurb 1. Given that the flight is no longer on the front page I think there is a clear consensus here to post. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Massive development. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment bolded article has two orange tags (update needed and NPOV). Regardless of whether we're merging or posting a new blurb, nothing will move before those are resolved. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Antimatter falls down

 * Hey, we have some cool science-related stories recently! I like this one, but as Andrew says, an update is needed. And some references are missing, I see. Tone 09:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support pending update. It's clearly a significant discovery of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While we should feature more scientific stories, I don't see this as a revolutionary discovery, just more a confirmation of what was expected to happen. --M asem (t) 12:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - No update, big unsourced sections, and I too question the relevance of this as confirms what most scientist suspected. If antimatter did "fall up" it would be a different story ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Confirms what most scientists suspected" can still be significant. The Higgs Boson was widely believed to exist, and we blurbed the experiment that proved as much. Kurtis (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To explain this for readers near the top of the thread-yes, this was I think considered more likely, but from the gravitational interaction of antimatter some serious physicists proposed arguments that it was the opposite. Blythwood (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * support its cool Daikido (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Yes, assumptions of what was expected to happen were confirmed, but one has to realize that when it comes to science - especially theoretical physics - this is a very, very big deal. We can theorize and hypothesize all day long with the best scientific knowledge we have on hand, but it doesn't take but one actual, in-the-wild observation to completely demolish a theory that looks good on paper. We need to publish more stories like this. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality The first two sections after the lead paragraph are totally unsourced, as is most of the third. Just out of interest, a question for anyone more knowledgeable - why wouldn't anti-matter react to gravity in the same way as matter? Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If the proper article - Gravitational interaction of antimatter - were advanced as the bold-link candidate instead of the easily-updated one, you wouldn't have to ask. —Cryptic 14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This was predicted but scientists don't assume when they can check. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose is this against what the consensus expected to happen? as far as I can remember, the only known difference between matter and antimatter is the electric charge. It is really such big news that one type of baryonic matter falls down just like another type of baryonic matter? What would really be news is if it didn't fall down like normal. JM2023 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not that this isn't a useful discovery, but I question the interest readers may have in what is effectively the null hypothesis being sustained. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose A great scientific discovery, I'm sure, but not sure if it's important enough for ITN, plus a lot of unsourced items. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support This nomination will probably fail, but it seems like a relatively important confirmation, even if it's not a surprise. This is also one of those rare headline fundamental physics experiments whose result is understandable and memorable to the average person (the detailed article less so, but that's to be expected). 70.181.1.68 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support on importance. Even if it's the predicted result, confirmation is important. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her) My Talk Page 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance, as the gravitational interaction of antimatter article explains, this was the subject of considerable debate (hey, maybe antimatter is the opposite of matter in all ways?) and having tested it is a big advance. No opinion on article quality. The primary article could potentially be moved to the gravitational interaction of antimatter article, which only has a few CNs. Blythwood (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong support - Huge achievement in Physics, a lot of implications, interesting story that is a change of pace from the usual stuff, In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support when the article is adequately ref'd. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle Most science is not "sexy science" à la The God Particle, but as IP/70.181.1.68 states above this is an important confirmation even it was somewhat expected. I have not looked at the article's quality, so am not commenting on that. Curbon7 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support it would've been a huge shock if antimatter didn't fall down, but even verifying that it falls down is a notable result. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For anyone wondering about the significance of this: General Relativity (which is our prevailing theory of gravity) does not distinguish between matter and antimatter. That's why it would have been a huge shock if antimatter didn't fall down. However, you cannot say that antimatter does not fall down without having done the experiments, and it's possible to devise theories where antimatter falls up, so showing that antimatter falls down is still a notable result. Banedon (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per Banedon. Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — No opinion on posting as I don't have the scientific knowledge to judge how significant this is. But I really dislike "[subject] does [verb]" constructions, because they're usually awkward and their infrequency can mean those skimming them read "[subject] doesn't [verb]," which is a much more familiar construction. Removing "does" also simply makes it more concise. I've added an alt blurb as such. I also moved "like normal matter" to avoid MOS:SOB issues. Jjamesryan (talk &#124; contribs) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Oppose I don't really think this all that notable. Antimatter was always said to have the same properties of normal matter. But if we are to post it can we please use blurb that doesn't say "fall down?" I know that's how most people think of gravity but its not really accurate. I suggest we quote the article and say something like. "The ALPHA experiment shows that antimatter particles behave in a similar way as normal matter in a gravitational field." I understand that's a bit wordy but it is more accurate. Aure entuluva (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing about science is that "well, we always knew that would happen" doesn't mean very much to a scientist. The boundary of theoretical physics is that you can't develop a working theory unless you are able to test a hypothesis such that it can empirically be proven or disproven. What we might regard as restating the obvious (which come on, how many of us here are experts in antimatter?) is in this case another step towards building a rigorous body of evidence, and this experimental outcome is truly a big step. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment consensus is close, but regardless the article is nowhere near ready. Is someone here up for sourcing the majority of the article? Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: John Tembo

 * Oppose for Now Nomination is definitely good faith, but the article needs serious citation work. ❤History  Theorist❤  04:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready Needs lots more sources.  Schwede 66  19:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aziz Pahad

 * Oppose One citation needed, but otherwise good. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support meets minimum criteria This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine for an RD to me. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: I've added a source for the only cn tag. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Donal Smith

 * Comment The article looks mostly fine, however the infobox mentions that his 800 m personal best is 1:48.54, which isn't sourced anywhere. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I found a reference that said that his 800 m personal best was 1:48.52. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice, I'll support this then. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  06:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This has enough details & references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Felix Ayo

 * Support Article appears sufficient for RD, AGFing non English sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient. Grimes2 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

RD: Hıfzı Topuz

 * Oppose Bibliography needs to be sourced with either refs or ISBNs. Looks alright otherwise. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Iraq wedding fire

 * Oppose on quality, support in principle Seems notable enough, but the article is a low quality stub, needs significant work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but support on notability. First, a fire in South Africa, second in Vietnam, now in Iraq. It's pretty awful how many building fires have occurred during the month. It's getting much coverage from various news sites and the death toll is very high for notability but for now, I'm opposing this as it is still a stub. Will be happy to support once the article is expanded. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 11:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Building fires are very common and that's why most places routinely have fire stations to attend to them. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, we require "something further [which] gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A small fraction of 1% of building fires have death tolls of over 100. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, over a hundred people dying in a building fire is certainly common and planned for.
 * The callousness of this comment stuns me. The   Kip  16:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with Andrew to a degree. Not to dismiss the death over one hundred ppl, but in the grand scheme of things, it seems unlikely that this event will have any long reaching impact, compared to something like the Grendell tower fire from a few years back. We (not just ITN) have become too focused on current events forgetting about the entire work not being a newspaper per NOTNEWS. There are both natural amd man-made disasters that happen all the time, but few have suffently long tails of influence to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, and we are losing our discretion for this. M asem (t) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Imagine it'd happened in the developed world. This article would be multiple times longer & have been edited by several times more people. It would've been posted hours ago. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It really depends, and I do think we need (as a whole not just ITN) to keep in mind the regional systematic bias of news coverage when it comes to unfortunate events like this. This is the whole NOTNEWS problem we have because few are looking at the big picture. M asem (t) 19:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't copy the Western-centrism of much of the media. Had this fire happened in Europe, it'd be a huge news story. Had the Grenfell Tower fire happened in the Middle East, it wouldn't have received a tenth of the media coverage it did, and the vast majority of people wouldn't have heard of it. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * well for one thing, (not to quote the joker but) some things are "according to plan" in the sense that they are not unexpected, while other things are "not according to plan" in the sense that they are unexpected. For example, there have been thousands of terrorist attacks in the middle east, yet the proportion of coverage they receive is miniscule; accordingly, a failure of safety that kills dozens in Iraq is considered less notable than a failure of safety that kills dozens in Britain because the Iraq version is not so unexpected. It is expected that Britain not only has less deadly accidents of this nature, but also that Britain has more rigourous safety standards and enforcement of those standards, a higher quality of life and a safer society... while Iraq is expected to have lower safety standards and higher danger. Britain is, as they say, a developed country in the developed world, so these things are highly unusual, whereas in an undeveloped or developing or war-torn poor country they are not considered to be so unusual, and thus considered less newsworthy. JM2023 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An accidental fire, killing over 100 civilians, isn't expected anywhere in the world. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * but as i said, such a thing is more expected in a poor terrorist-wracked developing country with low safety standards, and less expected in a rich highly-policed developed country with high safety standards, which is why things like Grenfell are given more prominence than things like this. JM2023 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that it's at all expected anywhere. Accidental fires in buildings with triple-digit death tolls are rare everywhere. I think this is the only one in the world this year. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Being sad is not a factor in significance, and your comment is an inappropriate overreaction to a basic explanation of Wikipedia guidelines. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality, support on notability Article is a stub at the moment, but certainly notable enough. The   Kip  12:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is still a stub. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is OK. There's room for further expansion but there is sufficient information for ITN. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We posted those other fires recently and the article is ok. Fdfexoex (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support because of its high death toll & article quality. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: @MonarchOfTerror, Midori No Sora, The Kip, Editor 5426387. Article is now expanded. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Consider my oppose stricken. The   Kip  22:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is of sufficient quality and length now. --Mika1h (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. ITN should be posting encyclopedic topics that happen to be in the news, not the news stories themselves. Wikipedia is not an newspaper. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 23:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN posts news stories far more often than topics that are in the news. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose random event, no long term effect. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you have decided not to post the The Station nightclub fire of 2003? Because this is essentially that, down to the use of pyrotechnics lighting inflammable materials. Not posting this is obvious systemic bias, especially since we posted the Grenfell tower fire. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I recall I opposed posting the Grenfell Tower fire pretty strongly as well - see June 2017 archives. Banedon (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that you couldn't see how Grenfell could have a long-term effect; it's been proven to have had major long-term effects. We don't know if they'll be a long-term effect from this fire or not, which is the case for most events posted to ITN. It's not a requirement for posting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * But knowing whether it has a long-term effect is a requirement for having an article. Whether posting P&G violating articles to the main page is acceptable is a matter up for debate. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Over 100 people were killed by fireworks being lit indoors, igniting illegal cladding. That'll have a long-term effect. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * somehow I doubt it will generate the sort of debates and public awareness that Grenfell did. The same way terrorism in Iraq is treated differently by the public than terrorism in Britain. JM2023 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Grenfell & Qaraqosh fires were fuelled by highly flammable, illegal cladding. The reactions will be similar, though Qaraqosh will receive less media coverage. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Really? Like what major long-term effects? Remember, I am looking for major long-term international effects, and changing one building material that most people cannot even name is not such an effect. Banedon (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * International effects aren't a requirement for article notability or posting on ITN. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "Ready" from the nomination header as there is nothing close to consensus to post as of right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see far more supports than opposes. Not sure why you think that's not consensus. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, it should be noted that only three of the opposes were on notability grounds. The others were due to the article quality, which has since been significantly improved. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It is definitely an unordinary fire accident when it kills over a hundred people. Unless we have decided to stop posting disasters completely (which the recent postings show is not the case) I don't think why this should not be as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Despite the fact it appears to be a domestic incident, a death toll of more than 100 people is extraordinary rare.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A death toll of 100 is tiny because about 55 million people die every year – that's about a hundred every minute. The biggest killer is heart disease and, as it happens, it's World Heart Day tomorrow.  And there is some news about this such as an alarming surge in prevalence amongst the young in the UAE.  As an encyclopedia, we should be highlighting such broad, big-picture issues.  Dramatic incidents and accidents are sensational, news-style coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ...this section is literally called "In The News". (also, that's two deaths per second, not a hundred) Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 08:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have said minute not second – thanks for the correction. By my calculation, it's 104/minute but that's based on 2019 stats. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish there were more news articles about the majority of those 55 million people that die every year that could be considered for posting. You're welcome to nominate the alarming surge in the prevalence of deaths caused by heart diseases. I'd like to see a way to accommodate more such stories on ITN in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If I made a page called "links to my website", that doesn't mean we should refocus Wikipedia to allow links to my website. The same goes for news stories. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 14:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posting  per consensus above with the improved quality of the article. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh explosion

 * Oppose on quality. Article is a stub and definitely can be expanded. No opinions on significance for now, will revote later after expansion. S5A-0043 Talk 07:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, oppose on quality. Definitely notable enough for ITN but the article is far from ready. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing like the Flight of Karabakh Armenians below. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with the proposal below.  Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a question below, asking whether the blurb on the exodus story (which seems to be getting more attention) should mention the explosion as well. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Already covered by another ITN, plus article is not ready.Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Careful to maintain NPOV on this highly contentious item PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on Quality. Article is still quite stubby, but notable enough given death count. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Dadasaheb Phalke Award

 * A handful of paragraphs in Acting Career are undersourced (long passages w/o any source or paragraphs ending w/o a citation) M asem (t) 03:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Acting career section needs more refs and there are 3 unsourced statements in awards. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  06:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * strongest possible Oppose since when do we post minor regional awards from places like india? they hardly have any global importance. this is the first time im hearing about this and im something of a cinemaphile myself. I feel like this is another sign of the worrisome trend of indians getting access to the itnernet and then starting to ovrwhelm wikipedia with their nationalism Daikido (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . Curbon7 (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * so? are we now going to post the highest turkish cinema award? highest russian one? Highest Nigerien one? This is absurd Daikido (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We also post the highest award in American cinema(Academy Award). This award is on the ITNR list meaning that notability is not for debate. If you disagree with this award being on ITNR, please start a discussion proposing its removal.  If you want to see other national awards posted, please nominate them so we can consider it. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's because the Academy Awards are the most famous awards in the cinema industry, I have never heard of the "Dadasaheb Phalke Award", neither have I heard any big news outlet talk about this. If we post this, might as well post the highest award in Yemeni cinema. 2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:B0D6:4702:226D:3569 (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see where "2601:58A:8E82:1FF0:B0D6:4702:226D:3569 must have heard of it" is a valid reason to support or oppose a nomination. People in India have heard of it and they are 1/8 of this planet's population. They get some content here, too. 331dot (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Academy Awards recognize some of the most famous and highest-grossing films on Earth, Hollywood is the world's biggest film industry, American popular culture through film is the most significant in the world -- plenty of reasons why the Oscars are more notable than these Indian film awards. Besides, this is English Wikipedia, and how many films at these awards were in English or known outside India and the Indian diaspora? JM2023 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly, we don't give a rat's ass that this is not a primarily English award. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * highly advised to strike "we don't give a rat's ass" from your comment, or maybe just the entire comment since that's basically the entirety of your one-clause response. not appropriate whatsoever, rude, emotional. JM2023 (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , no. If you take such issue with my comment, you know where to go. But before you go there, I'd highly recommend you read systemic racism to see why I take such issue with your comment. Curbon7 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * so not only are you explicitly challenging me to report you for telling me "we don't give a rat's ass", you're now alleging i'm a racist. JM2023 (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is WP:ITNR, so if you disagree that this should be here, I suggest you bring it up on WT:ITN per WP:ITNCDONT point 5. S5A-0043 Talk 07:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This could have been easily taken for removal at WP:ITNR without the rudeness and invectives that have been thrown in. With a callous disregard of WP:AGF and WP:PERSONALATTACKs as to the nationality of other users, I urge you to strike these parts of your comment. Gotitbro (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just saw that you have been trouted twice and warned thrice and more for this exact insult hurling and treatment of ITN as a WP:FORUM. And comments with derogatory slang usage such as orcs on that very Talk page do not inspire much confidence in a change of editing behaviour. I gravely suggest you desist from this. Gotitbro (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support She seems to be a national treasure, her article seems to tick all the boxes and rules is rules, eh? News coverage seems to be confined to one country but it is a big one and rule WP:ITNCDONT applies.  The ITN/R agreement included the following editors who may wish to confirm their position . Andrew🐉(talk) 07:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the highest award for film/cinema in India. I still support it being ITNR. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think TRM is allowed to respond here, due to editing restrictions -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ThaddeusB doesn't edit much now and explains on their user page that they mainly "got burned out on dealing with nasty people". AlexTiefling hasn't edited for five years but it's not clear why.  The other three editors still seem active.  As for TRM, their topic ban was closed initially as "no consensus" but then there was a do-over.  "Consensus" on Wikipedia is certainly "rough". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as many countries have film awards. I would also argue that the Golden Rooster Awards in China whose winners don't get posted are just as important. Sahaib (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Many countries do X" is not a reason to not post this. Please nominate an article about the awarding of the Golden Rooster award.  We can only consider what is nominated. Alternatively, please propose the removal of this award from the ITNR list. We also post the highest award in American cinema(Academy Award). 331dot (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Small nit: the Academy awards also consider non-US cinema, as evidenced when Parasite and its director won the big categories a few years back. The BAFTAs is more restrictive but also still put those. This award being the top for Bollywood absolutely should be recognized since India is the most populous country in the world. M asem (t) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted above, Please do not "Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive." 331dot (talk) 07:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - if this is ITNR, then it should be posted, regardless of merits. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To add: Although it looks like, although there was consensus to add it to ITNR, it got little notice or coverage. I don't oppose an IAR not posting, assuming we would then remove it from ITNR. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  08:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't posted, that shouldn't result in automatic removal. There should be a discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good to me which is the only thing that should matter for ITNR. While the National Film Awards are on ITNR looks like they have been ignored here often, issues with its significance/removal for ITN can be taken at WP:ITNR (only serves good that non-frequent ITNR items are brought forth to our attention). Gotitbro (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I should point out that Variety, an American publication, published an article about the award. I don't know if one non-Indian publication is enough to consider it in the news, but it's something to take into consideration. Elipticon (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support While I can certainly see the rationale for an IAR oppose, at the end of the day, Bollywood is huge and this award is its top honor. Makes sense to me. The   Kip  16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A re-visiting of film awards at ITN/R in general would be great, but I see no reason to oppose here. Bollywood is huge - I'd guess the 2nd biggest film center in the world? If anything, maybe we remove Filmfare, because that's also a Bollywood award and seemingly less significant then this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted briefly, then realised there's are a few paragraphs in the middle lacking a single reference. Stephen 01:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Add citations for the bits that were missing them. Should be fine now I believe. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Referencing and wordings have been improved since yesterday. To all opposing the ITNR entry of DPA; this is a wrong forum. §§<i style="color:#E0115F">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. ITNR. Article seems to be in good nick. Ktin (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 23:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose hard to believe this was supported despite not posting any other national film awards (i.e. Golden Rooster), even harder to believe it was posted with its own image, despite the fact that there is an actual ethnic cleansing going on in the same ITN block, you would think that would merit a photo more than one of a woman winning a rather obscure one-nation film award. JM2023 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have any issue with other national film awards not being posted, then nominate those awards. And calling the Dadasaheb Phalke Award "obscure" and not the "Golden Rooster" sounds like western-centrism. Tube·of·Light 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that any national film awards (Canadian Junos, British BAFTAs, Chinese Golden Rooster), and even the Oscars, are too obscure for ITN, considering the magnitude of other current events which are life-or-death, science-progressing, or geopolitics-altering, but that's just me (and I'm sure there are various RfCs that go against my personal opinions, but this is for context for my views). Regardless, as @Sahaib said, the Golden Rooster Awards weren't posted despite China being just as populous as India, so there could be an argument for consistency. Moot discussion anyway considering it's been posted JM2023 (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Coming from someone who used the term "Mentally retarded" in an article your idea of "western-centrism" is just like that term... 2A00:23C7:DB80:A101:E496:82FE:7B01:884A (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * you're responding to the wrong person JM2023 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brooks Robinson

 * Support Article is GA and has been updated. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Hall of Fame Baseball player whose article passed GA review just two years ago.--CaptainTeebs (talk) 02:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(Reposted) Flight of Karabakh Armenians

 * This is obviously not a recent death, so I copied the wrong template. Can someone please tweak it to fix this? Thanks, I don't see where I went wrong. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * you gotta remove the "recent deaths" parameter (along with the ITNR one too, since thats' reserved for yearly recurring stuff liek the oscars) Daikido (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone should create an article about the Azeri bombing of a gas station/reserve/storage that has killed mroe than a hundred people already with many more severely injured too? that happened yesterday Daikido (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Azerbaijan being behind it is completely unfounded conjecture at this point. Mooonswimmer 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose we already had an ITN heading about the conflict, so covered by the other blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The other blurb appears to have rolled off.


 * Support affects >10,000 people directly. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like some of the more egregious users here have at the very least departed temporarily, so I'm coming back to ITN. Support - This involves the plight of tens of thousands of people, fleeing from their homeland in what many folks have dubbed an ethnic cleansing. People are dying too; nearly 70 people were killed in a gas station explosion while leaving, which also left 105 injured; a lone disaster like that would have gotten posted here on ITN. Additionally, receiving extensive mainstream coverage. I think this outlines three out of the four WP:ITNPURPOSEs - the only issue is that it would likely be best to create a seperate, quality article. — Knightof  theswords  02:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Knight! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait but leaning support. It's not entirely clear how big of a deal this is going to become. But early indications suggest it might evolve into a major humanitarian crisis. There are claims that most of the ethnic Armenians fear political and religious persecution with many either already heading for the border or making plans to flee. A standalone article is likely justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - Yes, we just posted a blurb, but it has already rolled off, and I feel the blurb failed to do this event justice. This is a war that has been going on and off for the last 30 years, and it appears to be approaching its climax. There is a huge refugee crisis, and negotiations are taking place between Artsakh and Azerbaijan that will probably result in an Azerbaijani annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Receiving significant coverage, and certainly has a major impact. Not 100% sure if posting now is appropriate, but it's seems significant enough at least. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  05:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment While I think this is certainly a postable event now, it may be better to wait until we have a fuller picture, especially considering the dissolution of the NKR seems inevitable at this point . Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per mine and BilledMammal's comments; possibly combine with the Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion nomination above. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. The ethnic cleansing is more newsworthy than the inevitable annexation, but when the annexation does come there is no reason we can't also post that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose technically, as there's no specific article to bold and the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes have already been posted earlier. Brandmeistertalk  07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Created Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, if anyone wants to expand it to ITN quality it would be amazing! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support extremely relevant, should be in the news. Thousands of people are fleeing and the number rises each day. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7  (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing This started as a special military operation which rapidly became a ceasefire and now we have a large rush of refugees. Who knows what tomorrow may bring?  As this is a long-running conflict which is now fast-moving, it should be an entry in Ongoing.  BTW, I happened to notice a new memorial here yesterday and took a picture which seems topical. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Massive population flight regrettably caused by an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Having an Ongoing item would also be a possibility, although we'd need a separate article either for the timeline or for the aftermath (maybe Aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh offensive?) as the military conflict itself has ended. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We should also have an article for the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, given the notability and importance of the event itself. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The best article to cover all aspects seems to be Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * True if we want an ongoing item, but too vague for this specific blurb. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but combine seems logical to also incorporate the explosion and general conflict articles into one blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:NPOV. Presentation is not neutral. Should be not "attacked by Azerbaijan", but something like "after a military operation by Azerbaijan". Grand  master  13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ^ Yep PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the statements by Europe and the United States support the word attacked, as well as most news articles, so calling it an "operation" like Azerbaijan did would actually be the opposite of NPOV. RaffiKojian (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As usual, they paint only half of the picture. This was preceded by several recent landmine explosions in the region that killed at least 18 people (which was one of the triggers of the offensive), so there's a question of who attacked whom first. Brandmeistertalk  14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:RGW, the consensus in reputable sources is overwhelmingly that Azerbaijan started the military offensive, and that is how it is described in the relevant articles. Removing the blame and whitewashing, while it might look more "neutral", is certainly not WP:NPOV given what the sources actually say. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is currently moot anyway as there's no eligible target article for the main page. Brandmeistertalk  17:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes is suitable, and Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh may also be so soon - although similar to how 1948 Palestinian exodus was renamed we may need to move it to to Expulsion and flight of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. I also agree with Chaotic Enby that we should reflect reliable sources, who don't give much credence to Azerbaijani claims of Armenia starting the renewed conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The clashes were already posted once, I'm not sure subsections are also eligible as targets. The proposed blurb currently doesn't include the subsection. Brandmeistertalk  18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Subsections are eligible, and there is no rule against posting the same article twice if circumstances warrant it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For context I originally named it "Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" but it was renamed. Don't have too much time myself unfortunately but I'll be happy if anyone can expand it! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One needs to be careful with the term "expulsion", as it implies the use of force to drive a group of people away. That may or may not be the case here, but coming to a definitive conclusion would certainly require reliable sources. By comparison, "flight" and "exodus" seem uncontroversial and more-or-less interchangeable. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - the blurb presented is not neutral, it should not use the word "attacked" and there's also no need to mention the blockade. The discussion at the article's talk page is leaning towards "offensive" as a title, which describes factually what happened without using loaded language. This might be a significant enough story to post other than that, or perhaps it's an ongoing, since the initial story rolled off. I'm kind of neutral on that question. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added altblurb one, although I consider the proposed blurb neutral; attack is widely used by reliable sources, such as the Guardian, AP news, and the BBC. BilledMammal (talk)
 * Yes, that's much better, thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Moving from wait. There are now credible reports that people are being arrested by Azeri forces, in some cases as they attempt to flee. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Admin comment There is clear consensus to post here, and so I'd do that now ... but to what? 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes drops a reader right into the thick of things for two blurb-relevant sentences without much context. Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh is a stub. Thoughts? Is anyone up for improving one of these? Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be a good idea to move the relevant sections (with attribution) from 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes (which is bloated and slightly off-topic) to Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh? Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 22:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think either the article and section I linked to (2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes#26 September) is okay, because the context is above and quite accessible, or the new stub article which has prominent links to the main articles can work as well. I will add a concise if brief background to the stub right now in any case. RaffiKojian (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have spent some time expanding the article to maybe triple or quadruple the size it was when I got to it, others have been editing it since then too. It still needs work but I hope it's enough to link to for now. RaffiKojian (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Amazing, thank you! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 08:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * it's been significantly improved by others now, so should be ready to post. JM2023 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - I support posting if Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh gets expanded beyond a stub. --Mika1h (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Should the Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion be mentioned in the blurb? Either news story on its own would be ITN-worthy. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * no. getting too detailed means getting too long. we already have a planned dissolution of the state itself that could be added to the blurb first. JM2023 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Did we post the flight of Afghans after the Taliban takeover as well? If so, I would be leaning towards a support. Gotitbro (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gotitbro: The 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan was indeed referenced in the ITN section on the Main Page, but it wasn't the bolded article. Instead, the main link was the 2021 Kabul airport attack, which killed 183 people during the evacuation. That blurb might provide a decent example of how to handle posting the fuel explosion disaster and broader topic of the exodus at once, as I mentioned directly above. (Afghanistan is actually not a bad precedent to look at for Nagorno-Karabakh. The orders of magnitude are quite similar both for the number of people fleeing in the 'evacuation' and those killed in the 'disaster'. One of many obvious differences is that the airport attack was intentional, but the fuel explosion apparently wasn't.) 70.181.1.68 (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. I assume that the departure of people comes as a result of the reported ceasefire violations, so it's probably worth mentioning it in the blurb somehow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Update The government of the Republic of Artsakh has officially announced that it will dissolve, effective January 1. This isn't at all surprising, given the decisive result of the Azerbaijani offensive, but seems like yet another aspect of this unfolding story that would normally be considered important enough to merit a blurb. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * indeed the dissolution of a (de facto) sovereign state is always notable. JM2023 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Small detail, but the altblurb isn't grammatically correct ("...after being the region falls...") Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 08:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * fixed JM2023 (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also small detail, for "Created by", which article should be considered? Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 16:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * in my opinion, the bolded one, being the topic of the altblurb. is the creator who is credited the creator of that article? JM2023 (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm the creator (although not the main contributor) of the bolded article. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Took the initiative and fixed it, not sure if I should've done it myself. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 65,000 people have fled so far out of about 120,000 who lived there. Artsakh's government has declared its intention to dissolve by the new year. It's a bona fide ethnic cleansing affecting over a hundred thousand people and a conflict over a hundred years old. I wonder if this can be merged with the above proposal to post the dissolution of Artsakh. JM2023 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Merger with the Artsakh story, for the reasons mentioned in that nomination. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose in its current wording: "blockaded and attacked by Azerbaijan" does not adhere to NPOV. Something like "Tens of thousands of Armenians flee Nagorno-Karabakh after being a military operation by Azerbaijan." is more neutral Nemoralis (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Attack" is probably not the wrong word for a situation where virtually all RS use the word "attack" and Azerbaijan is by all sources invading Artsakh-held and Armenia-held territory, but by all means support the alt blurb, looks like that's the one going ahead anyway JM2023 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutrality doesn't mean we can't include straightforward descriptions of fact—it means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted with thanks to for the article improvement. No objections to merging this blurb with the dissolution, but that can be discussed in the section above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The item got removed, what happened? Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This apparently: "19:10, 29 September 2023‎ The ed17  talk contribs‎  1,831 bytes −55‎   -Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians due to NPOV tag and discussion; re-add +Tigst Assefa for main page balance thank Tag: 2017 wikitext editor"
 * Apparently the ongoing dispute at the main article, with the neutrality tag subject to an edit war, is the problem the editor found with the blurb.
 * Personally I think this was the wrong course of action. JM2023 (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted the action at WP:ERRORS. We should keep discussion there, but for context WP:ITNCRIT is unambiguous on this point: "Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link." Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest restoring it; just because an editor adds the tag doesn't mean there is an NPOV issue; I think it would be best to let the community discuss here whether the article should be pulled or not. In my opinion it should not be; having been engaged in the talk page I am not seeing any policy based arguments for that claim - the main claim by the editor who added the tag is that the article doesn't go into sufficient detail into Azerbaijani grievances with the Armenians, but reliable sources on the flight don't go into such detail either, considering it not relevant, and thus per NPOV we should not consider it relevant. BilledMammal (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, the consensus isn't that there are actual NPOV issues, and one editor adding a tag shouldn't lead to an entire article being pulled from the main page without discussion. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't have this discussion in two places; please go to WP:ERRORS, the appropriate venue for this. (Leaving off pings for other editors who have already posted there.) Ed [talk] [OMT] 20:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that it has been pulled I believe it is better to continue the discussion here, where a renewed consensus to post can form. BilledMammal (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the proposal I made of having the other blurb (the one not linking to the NPOV tagged article) as an interim solution? Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 23:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * better than nothing JM2023 (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Reposted Ed [talk] [OMT] 04:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry for all these issues! Small detail, can the blurb be updated from "tens of thousands" to "more than a hundred thousand" given the most recent count? (Asking here because it's more of an update than an error) Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * seconded JM2023 (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad, I checked and updates should be suggested in WP:ERRORS too apparently. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 11:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Eugenio Calabi

 * If there's a need for it I could fix up the research section without too much trouble. (I wrote it so I'm familiar with the content) Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Gumshoe2: That would be great. Once enough secondary sources are added to remove the tag, I think this will be ready to post to the main page under "Recent deaths". 70.181.1.68 (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Not ready Needs more sources.  Schwede 66  19:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Schwede66 I have fixed up the problematic section. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good now. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I suggest that the article is ready for Good article nominations.  Schwede 66  17:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Anthony Rota resignation

 * Oppose We should not. As Wikipedia isn’5 a local news agency, we should never include the resignation of national non-executive or non-head of office positions. Even when it is a matter of global embarrassment such as this.
 * _-_Alsor (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you scroll up and read the meager couple of paragraphs describing what is and what isn't to be posted here, you'd learn that this place is precisely for stuff that's 5 a local news agency - for stuff that's In the news, idk where u live but that story has been the main story in the news forthe past 2 days where i live Daikido (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a somewhat interesting story in the context of international relations (Canada, Ukraine, Poland), although I don't know whether it's important enough news for ITN. (Maybe DYK?) It's certainly the most prominent story in Canada at the moment. For reference, articles on the incident currently take up three of the top four news slots on the CBC.ca website, and eight of the top nine slots on the National Post website. The article on Yaroslav Hunka is currently nominated for AfD, although it's looking like it will end in a SNOW keep. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alternative This has become quite the major news article, per the Comment above and I think making it about the event would be better. I know that this comes as there are talks about WP:GS/RUSUKR in major contributions in this space so we should be cautious about Wikivoice but I think this would make a valuable addition to ItN MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Point of Order The Speaker of the House might sound more major than it is, if conflated with the American version. The Canadian speaker is more like a moderator than a mouthpiece for the majority, and basically sacrifices his or her party's agenda-pushing power for the good of neutrality. It's more that the entirety of the federal government (and the president of the Ukraine) unwittingly honoured the other man than a matter of this man's resignation. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Lean support since it's dominating the news in Canada This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose if the prime minister (Justin Trudeau) resigns, then yes. Banedon (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This has been one of the most entertaining news stories of the year to follow, but unfortunately I feel this is not notable enough for a blurb. Oh well PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment All of the proposed blurbs are way too wordy. Curbon7 (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pings to, , and who participated in the blurb discussion on 22 September prior to Rota's resignation. Curbon7 (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've shrunk Alt II, but won't apologize. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing This belongs in the timeline which we have in Ongoing as there are many such incidents every day. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose (or Ongoing) Clearly not notable enough, the Canadian speaker resigning might sound like a lot but he isn't as powerful or influential as one would believe. If Trudeau resigns, now that would be notable. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Certainly an interesting story, but doesn’t rise to the level of ITN, especially when the Canadian speaker isn’t quite as importsnt as their US equivalent. The   Kip  12:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still oppose Same reasoning as last time (not significant enough to hit ITN). <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Clean Support, I feel like Zelenskyy's visit being involved in the original fiasco and Poland and Russia joining in on the outrage both push this into the 'international' category. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: David McCallum

 * Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Moot The article looks fine, has had over 150,000 readers already on the news and I expect more today. RD is irrelevant and insignificant in such circumstances.  Note that the other Man from UNCLE, Robert Vaughn, was snubbed by ITN and his |David_McCallum views are naturally spiking again regardless. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One, ITN does not worry at all about page views and continuing to argue along those lines is becoming disruptive. Second, 99% of the RD noms for actors fail not because of OTN but because editors have failed to follow the high sourcing requirements for BLP (typically lacking refs for each role they have performed). This should not be happening, but that's definitely not ITN's fault. M asem (t) 19:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Quite a number of short, footnote-free paragraphs. Filmography and Discography sections are both largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Burkey Belser

 * Oppose - Article is significantly lacking citations ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I worked on the article and added citations from the WaPo obit, but there are still some sourcing issues.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite a few {cn} tags still in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) North Kosovo crisis

 * Support, while individual updates don't meet the ITN notability threshold, the sustained crisis absolutely does since the recent escalation. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If the Banjska attack is notable enough then it should be nominated for a blurb rather than ongoing. The article is not receiving frequent updates (before the attack the last new update was on the 31st of July), and it is far too soon to tell if this will be an event worthy of ongoing. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Judgement tells me that a crisis going on since 2022 and not previously in Ongoing shouldn't be added after all this time now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Frequent Updates is required, and this was not at all frequentky updated before the attack. Also, the crisis has been ongoing since a year ago, and if so, it shouldn't suddenly be Ongoing just because of a attack. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * True, it could be a better idea to have the attack itself (including its related developments) as a blurb maybe? If so then I'll retract my vote. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose posting this to ongoing The 2022–present North Kosovo crisis article hasn’t had enough updates to warrant being posted to ongoing. However, the Banjska attack article may merit a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Banjska attack might be notable enough for a blurb, but this article isn't getting the updates needed for ongoing. The   Kip  19:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(Stale) Banjska attack

 * Wait. Would be nice to wait on conformation on the casualty numbers, and subsequent events will really reveal if this is a "notable escalation" or more of a small flare-up. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - Per @DarkSide830 PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support we should link the 2022–present North Kosovo crisis in the blurb. Added altblurb1 Abcmaxx (talk) 08:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support given the geopolitical implications, especially altblurb1 putting it in context. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Lean toward supporting Has been featured in international news outlets and has garnered reactions from the international community. Telling whether this was a "notable escalation" or a "small flare-up" might require a crystal ball, but it seems just about notable enough to post now before it rolls off the ITN/C queue in a few days. Based on the infobox of the article 2022–present North Kosovo crisis (which could be wrong), this incident seems to be the only event of the year-long crisis that resulted in any deaths, so this is arguably an incident of high severity, even in the context of the wider conflict. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's misinformation regarding the number of Serb militants killed. The infobox says "6-10 killed" but this is false. Citation number 1 from September 25 which says "Four Serbs killed" was found to be incorrect as this report from Radio Free Europe notes. Citation number 2 says 8 killed from "police sources" but it was as the event was happening (September 24) Citation number 3 is from a Serbian lawyer's tweet in which he predicts there might be 7 to 10 killed (September 25). This is all based on outdated info and rumors and speculations. Kosovo police has officially stated three Serb militants were killed and one Kosovo police officer. This is what all reliable up to date sources are reporting.
 * From France 24 28 September: "Three Serb gunmen were killed in an hours-long firefight with Kosovo police". From Reuters 28 September: "Three attackers and a Kosovo Albanian police officer were killed in the skirmishes." From the Associated Press 29 September: "Kosovo police on Friday raided several locations in a Serb-dominated area of the country’s north, where weekend violence left one Kosovo police officer and three Serb insurgents dead". From Deutsche Welle 29 September: "In the ensuring firefight with Kosovar security forces, three attackers were killed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6C2:7766:9CD0:CD6D:7C62:5C1A (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Matteo Messina Denaro

 * Oppose. A few large, uncited paragraphs in the first three sections of the article. Maybe a few unneeded redlinks, but otherwise looking good. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still not ready.  Schwede 66  19:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Tigst Assefa

 * Support but I think editors should seek improvements here, namely on her personal life (pre-career stuff). Breaking these marathon records is not frequent (the last was 2019) so this seems right to include. M asem (t) 21:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, not everyday we see such a record! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per precedent ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: François Glorieux

 * Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 17:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Terry Kirkman

 * The Discography and Nominations sections need more sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article probably shouldn't have the full discography given that it's the band's discography (not solo) and is covered in that article. We don't usually include entire band discographies in individual band members' articles. The singles discography should definitely be removed as it's unsourced and because Kirkman wasn't in the band for some of the mid-70s singles.  freshacconci  (✉) 13:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the discography should be reduced or eliminated. It seems identical to the discography of the band. As for the nominations, the Grammy.com reference already covers all six nominations, even if that's not currently clear from the table layout. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the singles, which seems to be the major sticking point.  freshacconci  (✉) 18:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added refs from the Malcolm C. Searles book The Association "Cherish".  freshacconci  (✉) 20:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I believe the article is now adequately sourced to be listed on the main page.  freshacconci  (✉) 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per above. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) OSIRIS-REx

 * Support - Massive achievement, successful conclusion of a 7 year mission PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability Significant successful mission of encyclopedic interest. Also considering we posted the launch, arrival at the asteroid and sample collection at the asteroid to ITN, it seems only natural we post the conclusion of it returning. The article does have quite a few cn tags and some unsourced info though. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Easily notable scientific accomplishment. The   Kip  17:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Extremely notable accomplishment, with many scientific prospects. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Seeing a lot of coverage of this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per most of the above. Successful achievement (Mission accomplished) and very notable. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 01:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are still some unreferenced paragraphs and the capsule retrieval is referred to in the future tense. Stephen 01:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support when ready. A huge first! Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. Nice work. Please update the image since the Latvian PM blurb has rolled off. --Tone 06:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Nic Kerdiles

 * Support, article looks good to go now after fixing a CN tag. Kline • let me clear my throat! • contribs 17:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Terrible loss for the hockey community. Don't ride motorcycles - it isn't worth it. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The stats table at the bottom (which needs a source) indicates that the subject has represented his country internationally, but his achievements are not mentioned in the prose. His getting drafted by the NHL in 2012 should be in the main prose, too, with refs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Added citations for statistics and draft results in lead. Not sure on how to add his achievements.. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 15:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I hope the new first paragraph in the Career section is enough to fill that gap in coverage of his early career achievements. --PFHLai (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new footnotes. I have added a few sentences here and there, hoping to fill any gaps in coverage. Formatting of the wikibio looks okay to me. There are footnotes in expected spots. Earwig has nothing to complain about. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Dieter Schneider

 * Oppose. Needs more citations. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mike Henderson

 * The Discography section has remained largely unreferenced. There is also an orange tag for a short lead. --PFHLai (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted as blurb) Blurb/RD: Giorgio Napolitano

 * support, the event is all over the news and the article is in good shape, also this should be a blurb in my opinion.
 *  4me689  (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The article has quite a lot of unsourced info. Sourcing needs some work. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Article needs some fixing up ref wise. Once article is in top shape, I'll support a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb in principle Napolitano was one of the most significant and transformative figures in Europe for much of the last two decades, very similar to Berlusconi. Once the article's sourcing issues are fixed up, I would certainly support a blurb. Curbon7 (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Presidents in Italy are largely ceremonial, so less notability than if this was a Prime Minister (for example, a lot more people know who Georgia Meloni is rather than Sergio Mattarella). I also don't think we should automatically blurb the deaths of former heads of state. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , You are correct that the role of president is typically ceremonial, but did you read this particular article? It clearly states . Curbon7 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That [...] states that he was 'often accused by his critics'. While he did increase the authority and control of the President in Italian politics, what you're referring to was simply an opinion rather than a fact, and for a large part of his term the prime minister had more influence and control over Italy. Even so, I still don't think the death of a former head of state should automatically be rewarded a blurb unless their death was extraordinarily notable (Elizabeth II) or marked the symbolic end of a historical era (Constantine II of Greece). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Napolitano served as a president of Italy for nearly 10 years, and had a huge influence in European politics. most non-royal heads of state/government usually don't serve more than five years.  4me689  (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb as Napolitano's influence in politics was much above that of the average Italian president, making this blurb-notable in my opinion. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 20:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, changing as the level of subsequent coverage doesn't really justify a blurb, despite his influence. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Article does not clearly establish what type of influence or legacy he had over Italian politics. We can't have a blurb without some clear sources along this line. And obviously, far too many CNs to consider even RD posting. --M asem (t) 20:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will stress: there are only two lines that speak to his possible influence, and they are in the lede. This should be an entire section if we are going to post a blurb. M asem (t) 21:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Napolitano is easily a big enough name to receive a blurb on the news page. TheCorrectPanda (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD and Blurb Probably the most famous person in modern Italian politics. Satisfies notability requirements for blurb.Pyramids09 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m not opposed, but I’d say Berlusconi was at least a little more well-known. The   Kip  21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say Berlusconi was vastly more well-known. Nigej (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto regarding the two replies above. TheCorrectPanda (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Influential political figure for an extended period of time, especially compared to the average President of Italy. The   Kip  21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I am going to defer to the judgment of my fellow editors with regards to a significance elevated beyond that of a ceremonial president (though I do hope we do not repeat the error like that of the recent Singaporean presidential posting). Gotitbro (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb&mdash;Per Curbon7 et al. Haven't checked the article's quality, so I'll defer to the judgment of my fellow ITN regulars on that criterion. Kurtis (talk) 05:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Obviously huge politician. A communist who became a president of a neoliberal "democracy". Daikido (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD - Honestly I'm not seeing the level of coverage that would made me think this is blurb-worthy. Nigej (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you would consider an adequate level of coverage? I see plenty of front-page coverage in major global news. Curbon7 (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * eg the BBC. World section - not there. Europe section - not there. "Old man dies" sort of story to me. Very suitable for RD. Nigej (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I haven't gone through the prose yet, but I can see a couple of {cn} tags already, and the "After the Italian Communist Party" section has an orange {refimprove} tag, and the "Election" section has an orange {sources} tag. The "Electoral history" section carries zero footnotes. Most of the bullet-points under "Honours" are also unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb as this doesn't seem to be big news. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How so?
 * See The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/22/giorgio-napolitano-ex-communist-who-became-president-of-italy-dies-aged-98 Kirill C1 (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's just a wire story with some conventional history and condolences with no sense that it's big news of any kind. The big stories yesterday seem to have been the Bob Menendez bribery scandal and Rupert Murdoch's retirement. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew. It's not the biggest story of yesterday or today. Nigej (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't influence the posting of this blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. He was key in not letting Berlisconi become prime minister. In Italy, when you routinely see Prime Ministers who weren't elected by people, who weren't any party leaders during election campaign (see Matteo Renzi, Mario Draghi), the role of president is important, because he designates new Prime Minister. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment As long as the article is missing several references, it is not appropriate either for a blurb or for RD. Otherwise, it seem that the consensus is moving toward a blurb. Fix the references first, please. --Tone 09:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * !voters here are hand-waving on importance. As I've pointed out, I only see two sentences, both in the lede, that attempt to explain why he had a influence on later politics of Italy. There needs to be more about this in the article, not just asserted in !votes, before we can make a blurb. M asem (t) 13:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb because the story isn't big enough to justify one. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb as long, of course, as we have filled our daily quota of minor Indonesian politicians.  c o m p l a i n e r  17:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb never heard of him before now. Fdfexoex (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on quality support once improved. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Nowhere near the level of name recognition as Berlusconi. Not receiving the kind of coverage outside of routine reports that would demand a blurb.Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose Blurb on quality The article should be either close enough for RD, or just RD only. Blurb is not likely, but if article is brought to top shape, then may accept changing to support blurb. TheCorriynial (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD Article is cited well enough for RD, and article seems to be in good quality, Neutral about blurbs. Editor 5426387 (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support RD/Neutral on blurb I've long held that death blurb should be reserved for particularly notable heads of state/government; Napolitano arguably meets this, but quality concerns remain This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb on the basis that the death itself is not notable, and we shouldn't discriminate who had a more notable life than another. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * that someone has a more notable life than someone else is just the discrimination we have to exercise in deciding who has blurb and who has RD. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggested on the talk page scrapping RD blurbs altogether unless its linked to a standalone ITN event. Anyone who has a Wikipedia article is notable anyway. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A good idea is to do a RFC on RD blurbs on The talk section of this page, but most ITN topics are based on news coverage not in the notability.  4me689  (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * update, I've opened an RFC On the matter here  4me689  (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not supporting a blurb, but if one is posted, then the bolded article should be Death and state funeral of Giorgio Napolitano so long as that exists as a non-redirect. —Cryptic 16:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My judgment is to oppose this blurb, doesn't seem like a blurbable candidate. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not, president of Italy and member of government with a long career. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Shrug, I just don't think it's the sort of thing we would blurb, when you compare to our previous postings. That's really all it comes down to. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've started to avoid discussing blurbs on political figures that I know little about, but just having looked through Napolitano's article, I find it hard to despite his impact on Italian and thus global politics. Therefore, I'll put myself down as a support blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support blurb - As a former head of state and "dominant figure in Italian politics" (in the words of the article itself) and was the longest serving Italian president. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It says that but doesn't really have a clear place in the article where it explains that. I would not necessarily doubt this claim but if we are going to post this as a blurb, the article should be crystal clear how he was a dominant figure in Italian politics. M asem (t) 12:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The quality issues appear to have been resolved (I removed the poorly sourced international honors section that was the last remaining hurdle; kudos to for the enormous amount of work you've put in), and so with enough consensus here I've posted a blurb. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Pull There was no consensus. There were nine oppose blurbs. There is no such thing as enough consensus - there either is consensus or there isn't and there isn't. Fdfexoex (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is consensus when you consider that you can now discard all the "Oppose on quality" comments, as the quality is now fine. You can of course also discard your oppose as "I've never heard of him" is not a valid reason to oppose. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't counting oppose on qualitys - there are nine unconditional oppose blurbs. That's not consensus. Fdfexoex (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And there are fifteen "Support" or "Support once quality is fixed" comments. It's not all about counting, but that looks OK to me. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I voted "oppose" but I do have to agree that it's up to an admin to weigh the quality of !votes, and that's actually preferred as opposed to straight up vote-counting. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support May not be a household name in many countries, but his impact on Italian politics was huge. Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * describe how it was huge then? Berlusconi was huge, and we posted him a few months ago. But I see nothing in Napolitano's history to warrant it. Judging by obits, the most significant thing appears to be appointing Mario Monti as PM in the midst of the Eurozone debt crisis. Well OK, congratulations, but that doesn't put him up there alongside Mandela and Thatcher. I've rarely seen a more ridiculous blurb than this one TBH. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How it is ridiculous?
 * See reuters obit:
 * Napolitano, president who helped save Italy from possible default, dies at 98
 * 
 * Isn't saving such large and important country from default a huge achievement? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull and oppose please can we stop posting things days after they're nominated, and without consensus. This is getting absurd now. As a somewhat ceremonial president, whose position is less powerful than the PM, he's not remotely near the sort of bar which warrants a blurb in ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but he is far more important and known than Shane Warne, Jim Brown, and others. ITN should not be English language centric.
 * He wasn't ceremonial president, he helped increase the power of president. He appointed Renzi and Monti. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop implicitly accusing other individuals of bias towards English-speaking people/nations. You have been here long enough to know that ITN/C is very sensitive to issues of systemic bias, and we always weigh those issues in our discussions. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if anything the systemic bias is the opposite. An old white guy who wasn't really actually in power dies, but because he was from an "important" country we blurb him, while meanwhile when African leader Daniel arap Moi died (who was actually the sole autocratic leader of his country for over 20 years) died, I was ordered here to remove his blurb from ITN. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Giorgio Napolitano has 101 wiki pages.
 * Shane Warne had 30 pages at the moment he died, actor Dilip Kumar has 48, Jim Brown has 36. There weren't any suggestions to pull them, there weren't any assumptions that it's ridiculous to blurb them.
 * Number of wiki pages may not be agreed and flawless metric, but it tells something about the level of worldwide known fame and recognition, even if among Wikipedia editors.
 * Every famous and notable figure has obits and news about death, every very famous and transformative figure has in-depth analysis about their life and career. How are blurbs decided then?
 * It really seems it is down to subjective perception. For me, number of wiki pages is less subjective factor.
 * I don't see why Napolitano blurb is ridiculous while we blurbed Philippines former president and Greek king. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is not because of bias. Maybe there are other reasons for that.
 * But why there was support for blurbing Tom Brady's retirement, and there are opposes for blurbing "the longest-serving and longest-lived president in the history of the Italian Republic". Kirill C1 (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull - and im not seeing how there was consensus to post in the first place. Where besides Italy was this front page news? Heads of state that arent heads of government wouldnt even merit posting for office changes generally, but a nearly 100 year old who was head of state dying of old age would? Why? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We blurbed Dilip Kumar who was also nearly 100. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Absurd that the death of a 98-year-old ceremonial leader is now taking up a blurb line when it could have just been posted to RD. We need firmer guidelines on what is and is not blurbable. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * He was not ceremonial leader. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * don't pull, you are just understanding his influence, he is one of the biggest people in Italian politics and European politics, pulling nepolitano's blurb is like not giving Jimmy Carter a blurb, both has the some amount of influence in the respected countries and in some respects nepolitano has more  4me689  (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter of the Camp David Accords or Habitat for Hummanity or the Carter Center? Really? Here, Ill bet right now when Mr Carter passes away it will be front page news in Italy. I cant find any evidence that Napolitano was front page news anywhere besides Italy, and even then it doesnt seem to have been a leading story. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Giorgio Napolitano, Pillar of Italian politics, who averted default in Italy?
 * I am not that sure about Carter and Italy. You overestate his influence, Napolitano was more than twice longer president than Carter. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * well that’s all sorts of special. It’s a bit hard to have been the one to avert anything when the power of the office consists of asking others to avert something. Jimmy Carter just entering hospice was a story with significantly more coverage than Napolitano dying. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's more a comment on the media of various countries, and the fact that the US is a superpower, than it is someone's impact or influence. Napolitano was on the front page of the BBC, fwiw. Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And also Carters impact dwarfs Napolitano? Like there mayyyy be some US presidents with less impact (doubtful just as a result of the role being more than appointer of head of government), but Jimmy Carter ain’t it. It’s about to be stale anyway, but this is basically saying any head of state, not even government, merits a blurb even if they die in their sleep knocking on 100 years of age. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose to pulling. He saved important country from default, he opposed Berlusconi. While Berlusconi has a bit more wiki articles, Napolitano is not that far off.
 * He transformed the role of president of Italy. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So what? And no he did not save Italy from default lol, that’s just silly. That would be Mario Monti, you know the head of government who actually had a non ceremonial role in the matter. He opposed some other politician? News at 7, politicians oppose one another. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 14:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Bayani Fernando

 * Support Seems that the issues have been addressed upon checking the article. It looks good to be posted now. Vida0007 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a number of {cn} tags to several sourcing-deficient paragraphs. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Oldest wooden structure

 * Potentially of considerable interest, but at the moment the target article only has one sentence about this recent discovery. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a cool science story :) Happy to support, but the update is really thin at this point. Try to expand to a short paragraph or something. Tone 09:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the update to one paragraph. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice. Support from my side now. Will be happy to post if I see more support. As for the DYK, I agree this is also appropriate, we likely won't have a dedicated article which is a prerequisite. Tone 13:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose while this is a cool story, this is not ITN-worthy per-se, and would be more of a DYK article. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Extremely significant discovery, first wooden structure predating Homo sapiens itself. Plus, ITN has been very lacking in scientific discoveries recently, compared to the likes of political events. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Article needs expansion to include more details of the discovery, as of now any reference is difficult to find. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The new article meets the minimum quality for ITN and additionally, this is a significant discovery that is ITN-worthy. Kcmastrpc (talk)
 * Support I'm the one who added the initial sentence about the wooden structures, as an in-class training exercise for my African Archaeology students this semester who are working with the WikiEdu project. Thanks so much to the editors who are now expanding that section!! The structures are an incredible discovery and I would love to see them as an In the News item or as a Did You Know...Ninafundisha (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I made it a separate article (Kalambo structure), tell me if it's okay! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality Many unreferenced sections and sentences in the article. Major ref work needed before this could be debated for posting. Once issues have been fixed, I would support this. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's now a separate article (Kalambo structure) with added material, which should avoid the issue of unreferenced sections as these aren't the focus of the new article. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality per above. I think having a distinct target article for this structure in question would be worthwhile as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I could do it! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 16:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Created the article at Kalambo structure! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thanks! DarkSide830 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as a significant scientific discovery.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 16:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment&mdash;I'm very much inclined to support this, especially considering the fact that this apparently "predates Homo Sapiens". However, the phrase "wooden structure" is somewhat vague, and it's also unclear to me whether or not this structure was constructed by our evolutionary ancestors, of if it's something altogether separate. I think the blurb should expand upon these two points for clarity. Kurtis (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The structure is believed to have been constructed by Homo heidelbergensis, an ancestor of Homo sapiens. Agree that it would be a great idea to mention in the lead that it was built by a pre-sapiens hominin, rather than a natural formation. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 17:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is alt2 better? I don't think anything more specific than "wooden structure" can be said as it's apparently hard to tell what it is, we can only tell that it isn't natural. Alt2 is kinda long though. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in for alt 2 support. Interesting discovery, away from the usual ITN drab. Gotitbro (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's a big improvement&mdash;I might put the "predating Homo sapiens . . . made by Homo heidelbergensis" in parentheses, but otherwise I'm all for it. :) Kurtis (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Modified blurbs to reflect new standalone article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cool discovery, but not blurb-notable (per-say).Pyramids09 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support This is cool and it is good to feature African news here. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see the need for the separate article at this time. A section in the waterfall article with all the same info would be a sufficient update. This is a problem with these short articles that come about from not following proper NOTNEWS/NEVENT guidance. --M asem (t) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The new article has enough details & references & this is a very notable archaeological discovery. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not ready I suggest that the target article is not ready. It needs better structure; there's content in the lead that is not in the body. I suggest that the body of the article gets rewritten and once done, a lead gets drafted that summarises the body. When done, this will easily get my support.  Schwede 66  05:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved most of the lead in the body, adding some amount of new content there as well. Tell me if anything more needs to be done. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 15:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not ITN material. As a new article it is eligible for DYK and is better suited there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On what basis is a scientific discovery not ITN? People have been talking about finding evidence of non-human settlement for years, though perhaps not in this manner . Nfitz (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Technically, archaic humans are humans, too. Or maybe not "technically", but according to Wikipedia. Anyway, whoever made this, it's older than this beaver dam (though some beaver lumber predates all us hominids). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support definitely meets WP:ITNSIGNIF criteria and is well-updated for a recently created article. Happily888 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A very interesting discovery. The article's structure also looks better now. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 01:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Notable discovery, article is OK too. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. Very nice work with the article. --Tone 06:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Suggest alt image. The paper that published this finding is licensed under CC BY 4.0. I have uploaded one of the images from this paper onto Commons. Since we now have the picture of the wooden structure itself, I think we should replace the waterfall photo with the alt image. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 14:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree, although it shouldn't matter as it isn't the image being featured on the Main Page. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed; see above) Anthony Rota-Yaroslav Hunka scandal

 * Oppose - Good faith nom, but I just don't see the international significance of it. Maybe if it were related to Canada's ongoing diplomatic row with India, but it just seems like two unrelated occurrences that are creating quite the headache for Canada's government. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Yaroslav Hunka got an article out of this deal. It's not pretty, but it's probably not supposed to be. Maybe it can be included. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was going to but it would either be too long or run into seaofblue, I think the 14th Division link would be more important here. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Clearly a central figure, by my reading, whose article contains more relevant information as to why "most people" now think he (not really Rota) sucks. Your call, though. I'm not voting on it, either way. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose "outrage" is cheap. Worry about it if something happens (and something really dramatic would need to happen before I support this - even a resignation for example is still local internal politics). Banedon (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There're far bigger political faux pas than this and those don't even show up on ITN. <b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color: green;">Talk page</b> 02:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Kevin Byrne

 * No refs on his military career. No refs nor details on his 4 election wins to become mayor. A whole section on controversies while he was in office, but not much text on his accomplishments, which should not be too little if he had four terms as mayor -- that's rather uneven! Please expand this wikibio and add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Arlen Erdahl

 * Oppose. Lacking in information on his political career, considering the length of it. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Eugenia Viteri

 * Oppose. Bibliography needs citations. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Saroja Vaidyanathan

 * Posted Stephen 00:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Yoel Alroy

 * Missing details and references on materials related to the subject's sports career. --PFHLai (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) UK Online Safety Bill

 * comment I think there shoudl be some explanation of what that bill is or does in the blurb imo. i dont wanna go thru the link to get even the general idea of what that is Daikido (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Politicians doing they work. Surely this is not the BBC. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything, the recent enforcement of the EU's Digital Markets Act is to have a larger impact. --M asem (t) 13:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * What is the impact on Wikipedia readers or editors? Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  14:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the impact on Wikipedia readers or editors? Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't decide if something is newsworthy based on its impact on Wikipedia readers (and especially editors!), that would be WP:NAVELGAZING at its peak. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb does not make its significance clear, that WP is somehow tangentially involved is a navel gazing issue and does not really raise a bar for significance. Gotitbro (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose&mdash;The passage of a new law in any individual country is usually not ITN-worthy. There has to be some kind of extra significance for it to merit a blurb, which I'm just not seeing here. Kurtis (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Little to no wider significance than any other piece of domestic legislation. The   Kip  18:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Actually quite important, but article is a pile of crap and some of it is factually wrong. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the rather early close of this discussion. I've no real pinion on the item, but the blurb (and the article) does a poor job of explaining this bill's significance. The EFF caught my eye when they flatly stated that this bill "undermine[s] the privacy, security, and freedom of all internet users", so its impact seems likely to extend beyond the UK. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I read that EFF piece, but the problem is that we don't know to what extent it will. Clearly it will affect businesses within the UK, but the language of this bill appears to be unclear to how they will deal with international companies. When we start getting into the realm of hypotheticals, it doesn't make for a good ITN topic. As to contrast, we posted the GDPR as the effects both covering a wide range of people directly (EU) and beyond was reasonably clear from RSes and the language of the regulation. I do think, in hindsight, the Digital Markets Act passage should have also been posted (I dont think it was nominated at all) as that has a known impact as well, compared to this law. M asem (t) 12:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Precedents FYI, here are some previous nominations of a similar kind which were posted
 * General Data Protection Regulation
 * Net Neutrality
 * Egypt shuts internet
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * GDPR and Net-neutrality had wide and immediate effects, not so clear here. A country shutting its whole internet services down also falls in these. Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was also in the midst of a revolt that brought down a regime, so yeah a bit different. If the people of England rise up against their imperial overlords and the government hits the off switch on the internet to stymie them then yeah Id support that too. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - Quite notable, one of the biggest regulatory acts implemented to the UK internet, but I'm not sure about ITN. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. A quitnissential example of third- or forth-page news. Other than the direct NYT link provided by the nom, I have been unable to trace this story from the NYT front page, digging pretty deep there. Plenty of coverage of other international stories such as the UN meeting, the Canada-India spat, the Nagorno-Kharabakh conflict, etc. Several other stories from the U.K. are also covered including Sunak's announcement's of weakening of net-zero targets. But I couldn't find anything about this new UK law, even in the World/Europe subsection. Nsk92 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the Times front page for that day and also was not able to find this story. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - local politics. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Impact on Wikipedia specifically is irrelevant to notability, and we shouldn't go into this kind of navelgazing to justify something which is already independently notable. However, this will have massive consequences even outside of the UK itself as the bill applies to all services with a significant UK userbase, globally. While the law is voted locally, its consequences are much more far-reaching than this. It is definitely ITN-worthy. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Buddy Teevens

 * Comments: Almost half of the intro is currently about the subject's contributions to safety in football training, but this is not mentioned in the main prose at all. Perhaps much of that material needs to be moved out of the intro to form a new section? To be elaborated there? --PFHLai (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the last few sentences into the main prose to start a new section on "Safety in football training". --PFHLai (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Billy Chemirmir

 * Comment Date of birth isn't cited. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stephen Gould (tenor)

 * Support 2266 characters (373 words) "readable prose size" Grimes2 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding, I also added some. There's more detail on the German version of the Bayreuth Festival, but I'm out for travel today and tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: James F. Hoge Jr.

 * Oppose Career section is orange-tagged and lacks any refs. The   Kip  18:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Career section is still largely unsourced. Sources are also needed in the Personal life section for the sentences about his schooling and his brother. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: JoAnne A. Epps

 * Oppose Few CNs and an orange tag. The   Kip  18:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a bunch of citations but need to take a break. Hope some others can pitch in; I've pinged WP:African diaspora. Funcrunch (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a bit more citation work. I'm concerned that part of the text may be copied verbatim from other sources. E.g. the sentence "[...] inspired the creation of the Stephen and Sandra Sheller Center for Social Justice at Temple Law School, which introduces students to the many roles that lawyers can play in securing access to civil justice" is taken directly from her temple.edu biography. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Resolved that, thank you! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Really, publications under her own name should not require additional citations to support the contention that they are publications under her name. BD2412  T 01:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been adding some more to the early and personal life sections over the past couple of days.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Per Gahrton

 * Support - updated and ready. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Description of his work during his time in Parliament (1976-1995) is pretty limited at present and could use expansion.  Spencer T• C 20:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lou Deprijck

 * Support Short but fine for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Sufficiently updated. Ready.BabbaQ (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a few {cn} tags, including one for his DoB. There are also several deadlinks used in refs, including one that was cited four times, that need to be refreshed/replaced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His DoB is now ref'd in the revised personal life section, but this wikibio still has a couple of CN tags. Please add more REFs, or remove unsourced materials. --PFHLai (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Canada accuses Indian Government of killing Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil

 * Interesting. Is it the ambassador/high commisioner that has been expelled? Though I would note that itself does not necessarily make this notable (see the recent expulsions of ambassadors in Congo/Niger/Mali/EU countries). Do let know the wider implications of this beyond the expulsion. Gotitbro (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Canada and India are major global powers though, and we did blurb the Nigerien Crisis you're referring to. Canada, one of the great powers of the world, accusing India, another great power of an extra-judicial killing of a Canadian citizen is a big event.
 * As for which diplomats were expelled, I don't think that information has been disclosed, only that they were very top-ranking ones. There was a report that the Indian diplomat to Canada was also the head of the Indian intelligence agency in Canada. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, we did post the Nigerien crisis which was significant itself but not the fallout/aftermath (including the expulsions). In this case the assassination which happened months back (stale) is not the topic of the ITN posting but the diplomatic fallout which is limited to that for now. I would like to wait for further developments that are beyond the diplomatic sabre-rattling. Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2023 Nigerien crisis was the fallout/aftermath, as distinct from the 2023 Nigerien coup d'état. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right in which case it was only posted to the ongoing tab i.e. was not blurbed. Gotitbro (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question I support the nomination in principle (pending improvements), but do we have any verifiable proof that this has happened? I feel like if we post this we kinda give credibility to the accusation in itself. I know that we've posted the Khashoggi murder and i believe the assassination of that Chechen rebel in Berlin by the Russians as well, but I feel like those two cases were much more clear-cut than this one. Cheers! Daikido (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have any verifiable proof that it was the Indian government who killed Nijjar. I specified in the blurb that this was only an accusation, but perhaps more is needed to make that distinction. Regardless, the diplomatic fallout makes this worthy of a blurb to me. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support fair enough, I support this then  Daikido (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The accusation is currently being reported on by several news outlets including such as the NYT, CBS, Politico, and Reuters, and the blurb does a good job of clarifying that it's an accusation, not fact. River10000 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Governments say many things about other countries. They accuse each other and there is nothing that makes us see that it is not the typical diplomatic crisis between two countries. Something usual. Not close to a Khashoggi issue. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you would call a "typical diplomatic crisis" and how you would decide if it is or not ITN-worthy, but a country accusing another of commiting murder on their territory is certainly not "usual". Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can simply differentiate between simply an accusation (which this case seems to be) to something more serious like a national/international investigation or diplomatic decision making.
 * And notability is debated here, with opinions from everyone. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support on notability, agree that the emphasis in the blurb should be made on the accusation and subsequent diplomatic crisis until proof can be found. The current blurb is pretty good, although I regret the lack of a specific target article regarding the diplomatic crisis. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Justin Trudeau accuses I get that he "represents" Canada and the federal government in several senses, but it's a big government and I think attribution makes sense (no opinion or idea on whether the news is "notable"). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that Trudeau was repeating accusations presented to him by CSIS, rather than making them himself, so it would be inappropriate to say in wiki-voice that he himself is accusing. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's inappropriate at all, given the sources, and have rewritten the article's lead to match its body. CSIS tells him countless known unknown things; it's the publicity he gave this info that made it news today. This is ITN/C, though, with its own evidentiary processes. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree with "Justin Trudeau accuses" because the Canadian opposition has voiced its support of Trudeau on this diplomatic incident. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The accusations haven't just been from the Liberals, almost every major politician and political party in parliament has condemned this and blamed India. Pierre Poilievre of the Conservatives, NDP. Pretty much everyone in government has expressed outrage. I think it's fair to say that this is the position of the Canadian government as a whole PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those two are certainly talking about the accusation, but neither seems to repeat or add to it and both of your linked stories are clear about who made it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even so, the Liberals are the ruling party. Their position reflects that of the governance of Canada, irrespective of the opposition. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added an altblurb. This should not be construed as a Support Vote, nor should this note be taken to mean Oppose. If a poster sees fit to post, this is the one I'd prefer, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd often agree @InedibleHulk - but he literally stood up in the Commons, unbidden (other than impending media scoop), and announced it. Sure, CSIS (or more likely CSE) has briefed him. And I doubt @GhostOfDanGurney that the security service in question told him their accusation - they surely showed him, or played for him, the intercepts. Nfitz (talk) 04:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, he literally stood up, unbidden and announced it. It wasn't Canadians joining hands to spell out a message in candlelight to the space station nor even a joint letter from a few good chiefs, governors and/or ministers. Even the second time, just one man. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Who happens to be Canada's head of government. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as too soon. This is either the beginning of a major diplomatic incident that will surely make it to the main page eventually, or a big nothingburger that will be resolved over tea time. Hardeep Singh Nijjar also shouldn't be the main target, but rather Canada-India relations. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Too soon - Echo @GhostOfDanGurney's thoughts.
 * Wrythemann (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Wait until we confirm it, and even so, if this gets resolved soon and has no major outlash, this would still not be ITN-material. Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is a major development, similar to Jamal Khashoggi but with much broader ramifications. Certainly for Australia, where the US has been trying to coerce us into an alliance with India. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  01:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait/Oppose The long-term ramifications of this are unknown, as this is only a typical diplomatic spat and nothing close to escalating to complete severing of relations or aggression. It could go that way, but its not there yet. --M asem (t) 02:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose It pains me to say this, but cross border assassination by intelligence services has become, if not commonplace, then certainly not rare. The Russians and Israelis have been doing it for decades. And yes, it's been common knowledge. Often it is quietly swept under the rug so as not to rock the diplomatic boat. When the act is a bit too brazen to be ignored, a stiffly worded formal protest might be lodged and sometimes a diplomat or two expelled. It's a sad statement about where we are, but what would once have been treated as an act of war, is now simply tolerated in all but the rarest cases. If something really serious comes of this, maybe Canada breaks diplomatic relations with India, I will reconsider. Otherwise, this is just a somewhat unusual item on the global police blotter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is, didn't you guys post the Berlin murder where the russian state murdered someone? I def. remember you posting Khashoggi Daikido (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The target was classified as a terrorist by the Indian government. Lots of countries do this – see Targeted killing. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A designation rejected by Canada. Khashoggi was probably also considered a terrorist/enemy by the Russian government. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure you mean Saudi government? AryKun (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry. Saudi government PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't often that an extra-judicial murder by a major foreign power occurs, especially in Canada. And even so, the outcry and breakdown in relations (as well as the massive news coverage) furthers notability.
 * It's like how natural disasters happen incredibly often, yet we still post every one we deem to be above an arbitrary death toll. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - The expelled Indian diplomat to Canada was Pavan Kumar Rai, who was the head of the Indian intelligence agency's branch in Canada, if anyone is curious PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Not rare? I'm not aware of either it being done in Canada or by India. I'm also not aware of it happening between two democracies with a separation between church and state. This is significant. Nfitz (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the state-church relationship has nothing to do with this. The expulsion of ambassadors is not such a rare occurrence in diplomatic relations either. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to find a way to describe a liberal democracy, but not include Israel where government-sanctioned extraterritorial murder and kidnappings have been orchestrated in other liberal democracies. Ambassador expulsions are common enough (though between Commonwealth nations?) - keep in mind that neither Canada nor India, @Alsoriano97 have ever had ambassadors; but this was lower-level. But state-sanction murder of another Commonwealth member's citizen? Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - we had an ITN proposal when he was murdered; that didn't get enough support. If this doesn't push it over the edge, I don't know what was. An incredible and unexpected development. Nfitz (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support notable and widely being reported, independent of whether it's true or not (although it would be very surprising if it was true). AryKun (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Targeted extra-judicial killings per se are not particularly rare (just look at the CIA), but the fact that this incident involves India and Canada is unusual. India denies the allegation. There are some news articles about worsening Canadian–Indian relations as a result, but nothing concrete so far. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on significance. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 17:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Widely-covered in global media, and a major diplomatic incident between two nations of this size/influence is unusual enough. Article's short but passable. The   Kip  18:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Sure. This incident is getting tons of coverage. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 03:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted a modified alt3. Canada–India relations has very little content about this for linking the words "diplomatic crisis", so I dropped that. I've no objection to anyone improving the blurb. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, User:The ed17, instead of "Canada accuses India of killing" that "Canada accuses India of involvement in the killing". They've been very clear not to put it ALL on India; and the new report that both Canada and another ECHELON nation intercepted communications from diplomats; not the government. An assassination or a killing? Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you link the new article: 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis? <span style="font-family:'Linux Libertine','Georgia','Times',serif"> Peter Ormond &#128172;  08:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That change request should probably go through WP:ERRORS. It feels like semantics to me, but perhaps someone else will see it differently., that article has been redirected as a content fork. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not many eyes at errors, really. And it's all subjective. Nfitz (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes

 * Oppose: the blurbs are very biased and not neutral at all. Please change them. Nemoralis (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Explain how? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Created stub article. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is already created in article namespace but @Fram moved it to draft: Draft:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes Nemoralis (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The hook should be a mainspace article (currently drafted). Gotitbro (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Moved to mainspace since, would like to see a more neutral blurb which matches the article title though. Gotitbro (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved the original version to draft, and raised it at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. We should first have a neutral, well-sourced article before thinking about putting this in the mainspace, never mind putting it on the Main Page. This is a highly contentious topic, subject to General Sanctions, and needs attention from disinterested but policy-fluent editors (including preferably some admins) to make sure that our coverage is strictly neutral and factual. Fram (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I cited the BBC News article? Its breaking news not sure what you expected here. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it in the afternoon. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 11:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Update thanks to the efforts of the article is vastly different. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support this would be a significant escalation in the war, and once the problem has been fixed, this would be definitely ITN-worthy. Editor 5426387 (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm a bit iffy on the wording of 'invasion', I think it's too early to assign such a term to this event, as of now I've only seen confirmed reports of shelling rather than an actual military invasion. I also feel like we should be careful with neutrality as others have pointed out, this is an incredibly controversial topic.
 * As for the notability of the event, Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb as written Support alt blurb IV Since the disputed area, Nagorno-Karabakh, is "recognised internationally as part of Azerbaijan." (BBC article) it seems to me that the word "invasion" is confusing at best. Nigej (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * International recognition doesn't change how an army enters a territory. If China invaded Taiwan, how would we call it if not an invasion? Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I wouldn't call the current clashes an invasion either, but for a different reason: actual troop movement hasn't been confirmed yet, only shelling, from what I understand. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 14:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying people might think of it like Russia invading Ukraine. Is Ukraine now "invading" the parts of Ukraine that Russia now holds? Something like "retake" or "regain" perhaps. Nigej (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if Ukraine conducts a military operation in Crimea or Donetsk, would it be an invasion? Grand  master  17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support  Support alt blurb IV and also the current title is misleading, it should be changed to "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh offensive" or "2023 Nagorno-Karabakh attack" per multiple sources. - <b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3 <sup style="color:#0033a0">2 <sup style="color:#f2a800">7 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment. A war happening in our current timeline is very significant. Also, it has been pointed out by others but the blurb is sort of misleading (especially the word "invade"). It should be changed to something else, for example "attack". 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 15:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment new blurb proposed. Article is tagged in several places, but all are minor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I can get behind this, support alt blurb 3. Gotitbro (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt Blurb 3. That sounds better. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 16:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alternative blurb III as neutral, alternatively ongoing. Although reported casualties are currently low, this may grow bigger.  Brandmeistertalk   16:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * False balance isn't necessarily the most neutral choice, and presenting both sides as equally responsible, even by omission, is already WP:POV. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb IV. Alt blurb III isn't neutral; it tries to "both sides" it, rather than reflecting sources which describe Azerbaijan as launching a military operation against Nagorno Karbabakh; see the BBC, the ABC, CNN, France24. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article title does still state "clashes" so I don't think we are inaccurate with alt blurb 3. I believe the details can be handled within article itself, we need to be concise for ITN. I would reconsider if a page move occurs with a different descriptive. Gotitbro (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Three years after a ceasefire agreement, Azerbaijan initiates clashes against Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. (Alt blurb V?)
 * Here. Just as concise as alt blurb 3, still refers to "clashes", but doesn't omit who started the whole thing. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This appears good to me as well, do not see any issues with it. Gotitbro (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Alternative blurb IV: This is getting more intense as the hours pass, so this has to be on the main page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasoliveira653 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Obviously noteworthy enough to post. Leaning toward alt blurb IV as that seems to mirror the wording used by news media. I don't think the term "clashes" describes the event as informatively, despite it currently being the article title, although it may not strictly speaking be inaccurate. (Example quotes from the article, representing both sides' viewpoints: "[...] Azerbaijani offensive will continue unless the Karabakh Armenians disband their government bodies and armed forces". "[...] de facto capital, Stepanakert, and other cities were “under heavy shelling”" That sounds much more like "a military operation" than "clashes", which to me would imply small, isolated attacks near the border. Perhaps it started with clashes, as Azerbaijan claims, but it has evidently turned into a larger offensive.) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Alt IV: Widely reported, notable. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, preferably alt blurb IV No doubt on notability, this is a major escalation rapidly turning into a full-scale conflict. Strongly oppose alt blurb III as it attempts to "both-sides" the event and doesn't mention the key event, which is Azerbajian breaking the ceasefire and actually launching an attack. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support most of the blurbs are acceptable; the start of a new war between two nations is always notable and should be put on ITN as soon as quality is acceptable. However, the name of the article should be changed to reflect the reality on the ground before this is posted; please vote on the proposed name change so that we can resolve that quickly. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that getting the name issue fixed is a priority, although one could argue the news is important and urgent enough that it could be acceptable to post it beforehand (thus being an exception from the argument I made for the cash-for-visa scandal suggestion below). Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 22:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support probably even arguably a war at this point. Braganza (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - fine enough for a blurb now. a major escalation of tensions. BabbaQ (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Support, preferably alt-blurb 1, also ok with original blurb and alt 2 and 4. Heavily oppose alt 3, as it both-sides it when this is clealy a military offensive launched by Azerbaijan. If the word "invasion" is considered too strong for alt-1 to be used, I would also propose a modification of alt 4 to include the imporatnt information regarding the preceding 10-month blockade of the region, something like "After maintaining a blockade of the region for 10 months, Azerbaijan breaches the 2020 ceasefire agreement and  launches a military operation against Nagorno-Karabakh. Achemish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb IV notable, with international impact/coverage/interest. Article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support very important. Maybe alternative: Azerbaijan begins a military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh?-- 『 白猫<rt> しろ ねこ </rt> 』  Обг. 00:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb III per above. Nemoralis (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Not sure if I can vote seeing how I'm the nom, but I vote for alt blurb 4 seeing how it sounds the most grammatically correct. Blurb 3 sounds factually not very correct since it implicates blame on both sides citing just clashes even though clashes began after Azeri's declaration to finish the job, and because it should be pretty obvious to everyone that Artsakh didn't attack Azeris first for much the same reasons it was obvious to people that Poland didn't attack Germany in 1939. The power balance is just not there. Daikido (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support blurb 4 per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  09:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Update blurb? - Azerbaijan and Armenia have agreed to a ceasefire and peace talks mediated by Russia, starting tomorrow. Might be relevant to include this.  PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Ongoing This conflict has been been ongoing for years (like many others) and the latest clash/ceasefire seems to be moving too rapidly to say exactly what's happening now. It would therefore be better as ongoing rather than a specific blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing is a thing when we do not have a single blurb-worthy story, which is not the case here. The blurb needs an update to reflect the ceasefire, though. Tone 10:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Blurb amended - I've removed mention of the breach of the prior ceasefire, per discussion at WP:ERRORS, and now included the fact that there was a ceasefire announced today. If I've erred in any way, please let me know. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The blurb is a bit clunky in my opinion, I would suggest: "Azerbaijan's military operation in Nagorno-Karabakh results in a ceasefire." - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Or even "Azerbaijan's military operation against Armenia in Nagorno-Karabakh..." - Indefensible (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not 100% sure about mentioning the new ceasefire given reports of it already being violated, otherwise pretty good job! Thanks! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 18:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As it's already been posted, do I request a rewording/update here? The situation has turned into a massive exodus (that's the focus of all the news articles already), as Armenians have been fleeing the conditions and the Azeri soldiers to escape to Armenia for the past 2 days - basically since the moment Azerbaijan allowed them to start exiting after the long blockade and closed border. Maybe something like, "Mass exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia after successful Azerbaijani assault."--RaffiKojian (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * hmm that's a tricky one. I think the usual practice for such cases might be to start a new section at the top of this page and then label it as a "blurb change" request. Since it's a change in the agreed focus of the hook, the community may want to give its opinion. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. RaffiKojian (talk) 17:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Chandran Nair

 * Oppose This article needs more references & copy editing. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Henry Boucha

 * Oppose This article needs more references. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Constance Clayton

 * Comments: This wikibio, with 900+ words of prose, is more than long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. Earwig has no complaints. Footnoted references can be found at expected spots, except the first sentence in the Early life and education section -- those dates are, imo, too specific and somewhat overkills, and apart from the DoB, perhaps we don't need them. --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the first two sentences in that section to remove those unsourced dates. IMO, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article appears sufficient for the purposes of RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brereton C. Jones

 * Support per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Per nom. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 15:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 20:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Cash-for-visa scandal

 * Oppose Stub
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1st sentence of nomination: article only just created, all help greatly appreciated. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx Please see the ITN guidelines; true stubs are never appropriate for the main page. That said, perhaps @Hurricane Noah should have said, "Oppose on quality; may support if article is expanded" or something like that. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing we post this as it is though, I'm nominating to draw attention to a recent news event that needs expansion. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the 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, AATalk 21:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability.
 * <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 18:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I admit that when I first saw the blurb I thought it was too provincial or minor to post. I'm still uncertain but the scale of this ("Up to 250 000 visas may have been illegally issued since 2021 in return for bribes") actually seems like it might be notable enough for ITN, and although it primarily concerns Poland, it's kinda inherently an international issue, at least relating to the Schengen area countries and the countries the immigrants came from. Anyway, the article is too short at present. The version on pl.wikipedia is more detailed, so there's evidently enough information already available that could be used to build up a longer article. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ITN doesn't focus exclusively on issues with an international reach, and major local issues absolutely deserve to be included and usually are. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * True. I am aware of that (In_the_news), but in practice it seems to be brought up all the time as a consideration. Keeping that in mind, I do think this is plausibly important enough to post as it's a big deal in Poland (but the article quality is currently insufficient). 98.170.164.88 (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait Let's see if this implies the fall of Morawiecki's government. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Elections in a month in Poland... interesting situation considering the broader picture, and I would say support in principle, however, the article definitely needs some work. --Ouro (blah blah) 00:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It won't - many in Poland don’t even know about this, as state media is calling it a lie or not addressing it at all and many don't use independent media or have been led to believe that all non-state media is not to be trusted. This only got out because the rest of the world is out of United Right's grasp. The government also has the judiciary in their hands with the far-right Ziobro at its helm. If this scandal influences the elections, it'll be 5% lost to non-attendance and the Confederation party at the very most. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abcmaxx The way You wrote it seems as if Poland were close to a state-controlled dictatorship... actually it's not that far from it, but that's beside the point now. Luckily the thing is big and a lot of people listen to local radio stations that are likely to report this. Sidenote: I'm from Poland, and I found out about this from Wikipedia, as I generally don't use any Polish media at all. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to be controversial, those are quite simply facts of the matter. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying You were controversial, and I'm not saying the Polish situaton isn't. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support once the article gets expanded . However, the blurb isn't great, with a 3-for-1 link making it less intuitive for someone looking for the article. Maybe we could have a single link (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland is implicated in a cash-for-visa corruption scandal.), or rewrite the blurb to make the links distinct (The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland is implicated in a corruption scandal involving visa fraud.) Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 02:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * amended as per your suggestion. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Oppose as the potential inaccuracy of the title has been brought to light, waiting until a decision in the move discussion for a support vote: we can't have a link from the Main Page if the article's title itself is subject to debate or change. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now that the title issue has been fixed, it's definitely a Support vote for me. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Update Article is throughly expanded from when 1st nominated, there are lots and lots of sources (ranging from Irish TV to Jamaican newspapers) from which I'm sure a load more can be extracted. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support 2987 characters (482 words) "readable prose size". Grimes2 (talk) 09:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are allegations and the facts are disputed. We would normally wait for the results of the inquiry and any associated court cases.  Bribery and corruption are common in many places and the only special factor here seems to be that it's an issue in an election.  That's not unusual either. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the law, we do not usually limit ourselves to court cases in the news we post. Whether these allegations are correct or not, they still have a massive impact on the country's political landscape, are being reported worldwide, and have already had measurable effects (resignation of many members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
 * Also, "other stuff happens" is not a valid argument, especially given the scale of the scandal which is very much above everyday "bribery and corruption". Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. WP:BLPCRIME indicates that we should wait on the outcome of court cases.  The policy WP:NOTSCANDAL also applies.  And it's far from clear that this is any more significant than the numerous other issues related to immigration in Europe. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * there won't be a court case. The government in power is not going to sentence itself is it Abcmaxx (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As the name indicates, WP:BLPCRIME is for BLPs, not events, and doesn't even cover allegations against public figures. We can report on the allegations and their consequences without directly accusing anyone of criminal acts. For the rest, I'm not interested in debating partisan talking points. "Look at the immigration over there!" Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 11:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question The name bothers me. Is it REALLY Visagate in Polish? Who invented that silly construction? HiLo48 (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Polish Wikipedia (and sources in Polish) calls it pl:Afera wizowa, which would translate to "Visa affair/scandal". Given that sources in English also call it "Visa scandal", I'm not sure where that "Visagate" translation comes from. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's about what I expected. Not a fan of Visagate as a name. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * its not a controversial term; List of -gate scandals and controversies. What would you name it; 2023 Polish government woldwide visa fraud scheme scandal? Abcmaxx (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, afera wizowa doesn't translate as "Visagate", so unless it is the COMMONNAME amongst English (or indeed Polish) sources, it needs to move to Polish visa scandal or something similar. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I opened the discussion on the talk page for a potential move. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly does though - Orlengate = Afera Orlenu. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An article with absolutely no inline sources at all for the translation. Non-useful. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Polish visa scandal or Polish cash-for-visas scandal, as most WP:RS in both English and Polish refer to it. The question isn't about whether the term as coined is appropriate. We, on Wikipedia, are not the ones to coin terms to begin with, but to follow what sources call it. I've started a discussion on the talk page: Talk:Visagate Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 10:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would wait for conviction of particular officials (if of note), rather than vaguely associate a whole ministry unless it has resulted in some significant consequences already. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The vice-minister of the MFA tried to commit suicide allegedly: also its really made the election in less then a month really on knife edge even more so than before. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the problem is they wont convict their own, ever. Court cases will be forthcoming only if ruling party loses the upcoming elections. Therefore we could be waiting for things that potentially may never happen. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this really deserves ITN...yet. There is no point posting it to the main page when the outcome is still blurry and no decisions have been made. Plus the article seems to be lacking in content. And 'Visagate'? I'm sorry but that name is far too vague, and a poor translation at best. I honestly think the discussion should be closed as per WP:SNOW, but I'm not sure how to do that. --Octopusplushie (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really a SNOW case (unlike for cases where a particular consensus has emerged for not posting e.g. gun violence in the US), we do post scandals when deemed notable for ITN every now and then. Gotitbro (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There won't be any conclusions, the government is trying to cover the whole thing up and pretend it never happened. Waiting for outcomes, prosecutions, big heads to roll is like waiting for Godot (unless PiS loses in a month's time). Abcmaxx (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even wrapped in the best policy arguments, the amount of support votes precludes a SNOW close. WP:SNOW is when the consensus in unanimous or close enough to unanimous to make an outcome guaranteed, not when one side has (even very good) arguments but there is still an active debate. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 19:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed name as per consensus from visagate to Cash-for-visa scandal. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * comment this needs a lot more work. There is some fanciful stuff in here - needs more meat. I've done a bit, but needs more Secretlondon (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which bits are "fanciful" according to you? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced that is even the biggest Polish story currently. Why is this bigger than Poland banning weapons sales to Ukraine? Nfitz (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you exclude state-controlled media then it definitely is. Why do think they picked a fight with a Ukraine right now? Abcmaxx (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support def in the news. the article's okay Daikido (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 5x support and 2x opposes, factoring content of comments as well seems consensus to post? Abcmaxx (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is now well-referenced and about a highly notable case. Happily888 (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * can we please post this before it's too late? Abcmaxx (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I've fixed a referencing error. Otherwise a solid (enough) looking article.  Schwede 66  07:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Leaning oppose. Per comments above I'm also not sure this is the most noteworthy story out there, and also per WP:ERRORS I do actually think there's some truth in what Andrew says. There's a lot of uncertainty at least in the way it's described in the article about whether there's really any truth in the "allegations", and with elections coming up in the next few weeks in Poland I think we should probably be very cautious about anything that might be perceived to be biased against any candidate (similar to how we don't run stories at DYK or TFA if there's a related election coming up). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, there are more than 2x opposes above - I'd count Alsoriano97, Gotitbro, Secretlondon and Nfitz as being sceptical as well as the two explicit opposes... Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd always count skeptical comments as oppose !votes. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting oppose.
 * I don't see how this is a blurb item, like was said, it doesn't seem to be main thing even in Poland.
 * The coverage in sources isn't sufficient for blurb. I don't understand why it was posted seeing so many doubts in comments. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Byun Hee-bong

 * Oppose There's an uncited paragraph in career and the filmography and awards and nominations section need refs. His DoB also needs a ref. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Cited DoB. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Lacking a lot of citations in filmography and awards sections ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry, but the article needs to be cited more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 15:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing Removal: 2023 Nigerien Crisis

 * Oppose First off, It is very much still ongoing, second, it is still being updated, and third, you didn't even bother to add the blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ongoing removals don't need a blurb. Though there should be an article linked...I've added the article. Tails  Wx  20:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Editor 5426387 History6042 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't need a blurb for an ongoing removal PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support While there are ongoing updates, the amount of coverage this is getting in sources has significantly fallen off as to no longer be an "in the news" topic. It seems most of the updates are related to the efforts to stabilize after the coup and international reaction. --M asem (t) 21:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's why COVID-19 or the Sudan War are no longer in ongoing despite being updated and still 'ongoing'. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Sudan war is still in ongoing though? Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, got confused with another item. My bad PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support agree with nominator and Masem. The situation in Niger seems to be flat right now, with no major movements and, therefore, minimal international coverage. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - removal is premature at this point in my opinion. As noted above, the article still meets the requirements for listing. Stabilizing does not mean the crisis is resolved, it could easily reverse course and predicting it will soon be over would be WP:CRYSTAL. Better to revisit in the near future and see whether it no longer meets the requirements then. - Indefensible (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral This is still receiving updates most days. On the other hand, the situation does seem somewhat steady for now, as none of the updates after 15 August have involved fighting as far as I see. (Compare Timeline of the war in Sudan (2023), where almost every day that has coverage mentions an attack.) It's possible that non-fighting events could still be considered "in the news", for example the signing of the mutual defense pact a couple days ago, but it's certainly trending toward stability and hence non-newsworthiness. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Indefensible. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Per nom and Masem.  Spencer T• C 23:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Not much happening for quite a while. We can always add it back if the situation changes. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not like we can never put it back up again if we take it off. WP:CRYSTAL, we can't say yet if the conflict will escalate from here and become notable. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Just two days ago Niger signed a defensive military alliance with two neighbours also led by military juntas, which is hardly a routine development and resulted in an update. Definitely slowing down, but not quite to the level of removal at this point in time. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose this is a major event that affects several countries in a profound way, and it's continuing to develop. Arguably, if the international media is spending less time on it, they should spend more. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No content updates for the last four days, situation has mostly stalemated. If it escalates again we can repost, but for now it's been a whole lot of nothing. The   Kip  18:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin "Cowboy" Neale

 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support Article looks good, but lead could be expanded just a bit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the templates at the bottom of the wikipage indicates the subject as a winner of the Trevor Barker Award, but this is not mentioned in the prose. Important? --PFHLai (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The award, or the fact that it is not mentioned in the prose? (It was sourced in the infobox.) I have added a sentence to the article, with a reliable source reference. The article is poor quality bit hopefully an appearance in RD will attract some positive attention. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new sentence and footnote. --PFHLai (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(Needs Attention) RD: Joy Chambers-Grundy

 * Oppose Bibliography needs ISBNs or sources. Is the filmography covered by the sources at the bottom? The Sydney Morning Herald article doesn't confirm the info there and I'm not able to access the The Australian article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Added ISBNs and two sources for the bibliography. In some cases the publication year could be off by one (either due to reprints, or because publishers tend to round the year up in the last few months). I've just left the years as they already were on the page and assume it's not a big deal. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On the article's talk page, someone has pointed out that she couldn't have died on the 17th if she died in Bermuda. Even their comment is timestamped to 22:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC), i.e. 19:35, 16 September 2023 (ADT). I found a source to support the claim that she died on the 16th, and have modified the article accordingly. Note that some other sources have repeated the 17th death date (citogenesis?), but it's impossible given the time zone and when her death was announced. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, it gets more confusing. I think what the Wikipedia article had wrong was her place of death, not her date of death, and she actually died in Australia on the 17th. This is because the statement released by her family says she died on Sunday morning, which would be the 17th. I found other sources that say she actually died in Queensland, Australia, citing the family's statement, and I think I trust them more than the ones that say she died in Bermuda (although I haven't found the full statement and whether it mentions the location). If we assume this is true, then the comment on the article's talk page would have actually dated to the morning of Sunday the 17th, which resolves the date contradiction. I admit I was quite confused, though, as there are sources saying she died in Bermuda, but more (and probably more reliable ones) say she died in Australia. I would appreciate it if someone else could check this. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Murat Karayılan

 * Oppose independent confirmation tag next to the source used. 2001:1C02:1C1E:100:A4E4:44AA:9B24:7E0D (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Horace Ové

 * Very weak oppose A few minor CNs, but overall extremely well-written/cited. The   Kip  19:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Remaining CNs taken care of, changing to Support. Good job, updaters! The   Kip  03:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Good job indeed.  Schwede 66  19:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lionel Morgan (rugby league)

 * Support Quite short but fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. The   Kip  19:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gita Mehta

 * Comment. Please can I request an editor or two to take a look. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support No issues that I can see. Referencing looks good.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ron Barassi

 * Support, no CN tags or cleanup tags. Article is also well-sourced. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Sourcing improvements are necessary. There’s an uncited paragraph in early life, an uncited paragraph in North Melbourne years, 3 uncited statements in personal life and 3 uncited paragraphs + 2 uncited statements in the Cultural impact and legacy section. A bit of uncited info is fine for an otherwise good article but this is a bit too much. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks fairly good now. Marking as ready. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I have added some additional references. Article is now fully sourced. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good for RD now. Vida0007 (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted I did some minor cleanup (hid unsourced content) and with that, this was more than ready.  Schwede 66  09:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Needs attention) RD: Vanessa Show

 * This is almost ready Support There are enough details & references, but the statement “she began to definitively intervene her body” needs to be clarified. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Billy Miller

 * American actor of soap operas. Death reason not known yet.  Bremps  ...  02:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Filmography section is entirely uncited.  Schwede 66  04:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography section uncited. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Filmography has remained largely unsourced. There is also a footnote-free paragraph (In 2011,...). Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Evika Siliņa becomes new PM of Latvia

 * The final sentence in the Evika Siliņa article now is "On 24 August, she was asked by President Edgars Rinkēvičs to form a government." That was three weeks ago. Please continue with the news story and update the article. --PFHLai (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Her article would need to be expanded a bit more, especially regarding her position as a minister, political positions, etc. I understand that she was probably not a well-known politician so little information about her may be accessible, but currently her article is not ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article's quality seems quite adequate. Insofar as it's small, presumably that's because the subject is comparatively young and new to this high office.  As we're an encyclopedia, articles should be a succinct summary of key facts rather than being padded out to an arbitrary length.  Andrew🐉(talk) 20:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Added more content. Now I think it's quite ready. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Was probably already good enough to post beforehand IMO, and now undoubtedly ready following Alsoriano97's additions. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted a shorter version of the blurb. Kariņš's resignation is not news anymore. --PFHLai (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fernando Botero

 * Support. Article is ready.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs ref work. A statement in the early life section needs a source, the career section is missing some refs, sculpture section is uncited, donations section is missing a ref and later exhibitions section is mostly uncited. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article has improved sufficiently. The DoB needs a ref though, the early life section only mentions 1932 and not the exact date listed in the infobox/start of article. Also I'd like some prose on the stuff in the notable works part of the infobox. However I do think the current article is sufficient, so I’m marking it as ready. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added ref in the date of birth. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: One of Latin America's most important sculptors and painters, and per article quality. I can't find the issues mentioned at the comment above, so I assume they all have been solved ever since. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support it appears that the issues detected by Monarch of Terror seem to have been fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

United Auto Workers strike

 * Oppose “announces” it is not ITN material. And it does not seem to be a more notorious strike than any other strike in any other sector in any other country. Strikes are commonplace. _-_Alsor (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 13,000 UAW members have already gone on strike as of this morning. This is also the first time that the Detroit Three have all been targeted at the same time, which is what makes it significant. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * is still not extraordinary. You can easily find a strike of more than 20,000 people in another part of the world. Strikes are commonplace. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can easily find a strike of more than 20,000 people in another part of the world.
 * Reminder this falls somewhat under point 2 of WP:ITNCDONT. “Oppose” votes because “it’s common elsewhere” stand on extremely shaky ground. The   Kip  15:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose minor thing on the grand scale of things --Daikido (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only strike we have posted that I can remember is the French pension reform one, and that went on for months and involved literally millions of people. We didn't post the recent UK public service strikes earlier in the year, for example, which were on a much larger scale than this one, so I can't see that this is any more notable. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2023 Hollywood strikes were also posted once the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike started. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above (significance). Only a fraction of the entire UAW body is on strike. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support We also posted the (still-ongoing) SAG-AFTRA strike when it began in July. Davey2116 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was massively important for a different reason (the importance of entertainment media in modern people's lives) not to mention it involved more people still. Daikido (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This strike is likely to have much farther reaching consequences in the economy. Since America is one of the biggest car manufacturing nations, prices of automobiles are sure to go upward. This has been cited by [CNN] as even though only the big 3 automakers are being struck, due to Foreign Carmakers' low inventory, prices of cars will go up. Similar to the price of Oil during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 00:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article well sourced, first trilateral strike against the three automakers in the union's history and per Davey2116. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Regardless of employee count, this is a broad-spectrum strike against all "Big Three" US automakers. Unprecedented. I would update Stellantis to say (formerly Fiat Chrysler). CoatCheck (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait — Impact is unknown at the moment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not on the level of lasting significance for ITN. Also the UK and other countries have been having numerous disruptive strikes all year, we don't and can't post everything. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote @The Kip:  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is the first time that there's a simultaneous strike against the Big Three; that in itself is extremely significant. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the big 5 for US sales are Ford, Toyota, Chrysler, Honda, and Kia. GM is ranked 12th. Those 3 companies mentioned in the blurb account for less than 1/3 of cars (and trucks?) sold in that country. Have those 3 companies been the top 3 ever this century, @Voorts? Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "Big Three" refers to the top three manufacturers, not the top three by sales. In the U.S., Big Three is the COMMONNAME for Ford, GM, and Stellantis. See, e.g., ; ; . P.S. Happy WikiBirthday. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The impact is by actual number of employees on strike, and others impacted though. Not how the car industry was named and structured mid-last century. The majority of US car manufacturers aren't even unionized these days! Toyota and Honda alone make millions of cars in the USA (many for export). Nfitz (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - very local, and unlike other local strikes we've rejected, there isn't even much in the way of immediate impacts. Are we really talking only 13,000 strikers!? That seems piddling compared to the 2023 Canadian federal worker strike which did have immediate impacts, and was 12-times larger, with over 150,000 on strike - and was rejected as being of not enough impact, too small, and too local. Nfitz (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason only 13,000 strikers are out is because the UAW decided to begin the strike small, at select plants, and build up as time goes on. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Surely if this is still a small strike then, User:Voorts, then it would be a wait and see if there's a big strike. Perhaps with global implications? Nfitz (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See User:InvadingInvader/Against international notability. It deals with years articles, but the core messages can translate over to this.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 02:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, User:InvadingInvader. But it's hard to get one's head around how such a small strike would be notable, with no immediate impacts, when 10-times larger strikes, in countries 1/10th the size, with immediate impact; aren't ITN. Surely, such a common thing as a strike needs to get pretty big and serious before being ITN; such having dire political consequences that could lead to a government falling, significant deaths, complete shutdowns (general strikes), or major fi. Gosh, someone nominated a entertainment industry strike a few weeks ago; (really!) ... and it's having many more people on strike! Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now At the moment, this strike isn’t big enough to be notable enough for ITN. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment At the very least the current blurb needs to be changed. The blurb implies that the main story is the announcement of the strike, not the strike itself. The announcement of the strike isn’t notable, the strike itself is. Something like "In the United States, the United Auto Workers goes on strike against Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis after contract negotiations break down." would be better. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article says very little about the actual strike which is quite limited in scale. The expectation seems to be that the conflict will be protracted and so it's more of an ongoing campaign rather than distinct event. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Lauch Faircloth

 * Oppose for now as much as I want to support this nomination, I feel that it's too under-cited to appear on ITN. ❤History  Theorist❤  02:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article doesn't have adequate sourcing. Suonii180 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * His brief military service in the infobox needs to be mentioned in the main prose. There are a few paragraphs in need of more sourcing. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Scattered Spider hacks of MGM and Caesars

 * Oppose Good Faith Nomination perhaps my view will change, but I do not think this nomination is notable enough for ITN. ❤History  Theorist❤  22:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose cyber-attacks are extremely more common than people think, so they are not per se notorious. Much less so when the targets are just...hotels. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable. I can't see there being an article on this, let alone an ITN. There isn't even a mentioned of it in either the MGM or Caesars articles. Little media coverage. Can we close? Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

(Removed) Ongoing removal: 2023 Canadian wildfires

 * Support Per nominator. For a formal issue (lack of updating or daily continuity in them) and for a substantive issue (it has ceased to be notorious, with no more international attention). _-_Alsor (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Majority of recent changes appears to be copy editing and visual/image changes as well as updating the number of fires and affected area in the infobox. Hasn’t had a substantive prose update in a while. News coverage has also almost entirely died down as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;There are still hundreds of wildfires currently burning in B.C., but on the whole, the worst seems to have passed. Kurtis (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Mostly minor statistical updates, the worst impacts have come and gone. The   Kip  20:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per above. From CIFFC, "only" a little under a hundred wildfires each of the last two weeks, compared to 400-500 weekly during the peak in July. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Although they are not weighted by affected area (as the last graph shows, that's the main difference between this year and last year while the fire count was roughly the same), so that's a caveat to take into consideration Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The area burned per day has hardly changed since before this was posted. Some fluctuations even short backtracks from estimation errors but still almost as fast as ever. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk ) 22:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - still big news here; and the amount of area burning is still immense; even if the numbers of fires are down, and less cities are evacuated. Biggest factor in terms of news coverage, is the wind hasn't been blowing into the USA much recently. The next band of thick smoke hits Chicago on Saturday though, according to the forecast ... Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This is no longer daily news. It has subsided to the point that it is being treated as all other wildfires in the world - routine matters during the summer months. --M asem (t) 03:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Even the fire is still ongoing in some places, most of the major news sites have stop updating the situation. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 07:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Bold Support, pretty stale  2A00:23C8:B03:9F01:7436:E482:83CC:93D4 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed, per general consensus. --Tone 13:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Roger Whittaker

 * Not ready. Multiple citation needed tags to resolve, and one citation template error to fix. Flibirigit (talk) 10:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mircea Snegur

 * Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support. The article does have adequate sourcing. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 13:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: John McDonald

 * Oppose. Article is a stub. It should be expanded more. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 17:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This stubby wikibio has only 250 words of prose. Anything else to write about him? --PFHLai (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jean Boht

 * Oppose Filmography is uncited and career section has some uncited statements. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Filmography section is still unsourced. A few {cn} tags in the prose. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Danilo Cavalcante capture
I'm not sure if this is the right... anything, but I think this is a relatively relevant event. Please tell me if I did something wrong with formatting or anything so I can do it right next time :)


 * Oppose and Close. No viable target articles. Barring a change on this front, we can't post this item, regardless of notability. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your nomination to WP:ITN/C! We always appreciate seeing new contributors here. On ITN when assessing nominations for news items, we operate on the basis of significance which, unlike most other processes on Wikipedia, is a subjective assessment based on consensus reached by other users. At the present time, ITN/C has tended to skew away from local events of this sort. Also, as DarkSide830 said, there needs to be an updated target article in accordance with our goal to direct users to quality content on Wikipedia. For more information about how the process works here, please read the guide that I created called WP:HOWITNWORKS. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  16:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and SNOW close per DarkSide. Editor 5426387 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and snow close Good faith nomination, but it's going nowhere. Per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Hanoi building fire

 * Oppose on quality for now, open to change my vote if the article gets expanded. No comment on notability, although it's pretty horrible to see how many tragedies have happened these last days. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 00:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support - no issue about notability and the article has already been expanded quite a bit although still not in perfect shape. But I trust the community on this one! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on quality obviously, duh, high death toll Daikido (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Read WP:ITNCDONT, specifically the first part. High death toll doesn't mean much if the article isn't up to standards. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Support on quality"
 * The article is still a stub??? The   Kip  03:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And what do you mean "duh"? Remember that death toll is not the only factor through which significance is measured. We have declined posting events with similarly numbered death tolls before. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  12:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to get too into the weeds, but the user in question has a history of semi-disruptive behavior at ITN, so this seems rather typical. The   Kip  16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just in case my original vote wasn't clear, "quality" was about the state of the article (still a stub back then), not about notability (I mean, it would've been a bit weird to talk about a "high-quality disater"). In any case I edited it since as the article has grown quite a bit! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Article needs some serious work. Will be happy to support once it's up to par. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing to weak support. Could use some more work, but it looks just about ready for ITN. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

*Oppose on quality per above. The article's a stub with few details. The  Kip  03:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support now, article’s been expanded just enough to meet ITN standards. The   Kip  16:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in principle as precedent holds that building fires are generally ITN (per South Africa from last week) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support on notability, weak oppose on quality. Not exactly a stub now but still a bit too short. S5A-0043 Talk 07:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Full support as article has been improved. S5A-0043 Talk 01:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Notable event with worldwide coverage a high impact in Vietnam. The length of the article is about the same of 2023 Johannesburg building fire. 109.37.147.78 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support notable event, plus we mentioned all the previous building fires with such death toll, plus article is no longer a stub. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Fairly high death toll and alright coverage and considering we posted the Johannesburg fire and the similar nature of this, we should probably post this too. Article quality has improved sufficiently as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support High death toll and article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question nobody still opposes; and the last input is almost 24-hours ago. What are we waiting for? 109.37.149.106 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted –  Schwede 66  16:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed x 2) Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden
SecretName101 (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this point, reconsider if some actual vote takes place. Tone 06:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait until actual votes happen for the impeachment Oppose and WP:SNOW close. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 07:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jalapeño Inquiries and impeachments are different phases of an impeachment process. An impeachment inquiry being launched is itself highly notable news SecretName101 (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, though the inquiry itself happens before the vote, so, in my opinion, we should wait until the votes finish, if there even will be a vote. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 08:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, those are two different occurances. With many subjects, we report on big developments at different stages. For instance, I'm quite confident few said "wait until the general election" when people suggested adding Kamala Harris' selection as a running-mate in 2020. SecretName101 (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose / wait until voting per above. At this moment this looks like digging up dirt magnified by media circus. Brandmeistertalk  08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What voting? Inquiries can be opened without votes, and this one just was. No vote is planneed.
 * Again people: You are required to actually READ the content before chiming in. SecretName101 (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose “it is announced” it’s not ITN material and has never been. Close and wait until voting. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, have you people been reading the material on inquiries before chiming in?
 * Because actually doing the reading is required before chiming in. The articles linked to in the blurb would inform you: you do not need to hold a vote for there to be an inquiry. A vote is only needed to impeach, not to launch a preceding inquiry. McCarthy's announcement constitutes the launch of the inquiry. He does not plan on their being a vote, so you are waiting on a non-existent event. SecretName101 (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait - I will support this once a vote actually takes place. Another exciting episode of American politics, time to grab some popcorn PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - we added the impeachment inquiries against Trump in 2019 into Ongoing immediately, before any House votes had taken place, where it remained until the process concluded. Much as I personally think this is a storm in a teacup, and not the most important US news, I am concerned from a NPOV point of view that we might not be treating similar items equally. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposed blurb doesn't include the nominated article. See also WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BLPCRIME. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then propose an alternate blurb. SecretName101 (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alt blurb: An impeachment inquiry investigating U.S. president Joe Biden (pictured) is announced by U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy
 * See how easy that was?SecretName101 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Add to ongoing - per Amakuru's comment and WP:NPOV, we should post this to ongoing especially since we did the same thing for Trump back in 2019. I would not understand why Trump got special treatment in ITN while Biden did not. Interstellarity (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Might one argue that U.S. presidential impeachments could already be blasé?—Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should we post every impeachment process in every country? We didn't post the two impeachment processes (that failed) against Sebastián Piñera, for example. If we post this, so we should post those in the future. --Bedivere (talk) 12:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Have y'all not read the guidelines at the top of the article? This is a highly discouraged take, and inappropriate grounds for opposition. SecretName101 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question House Speaker McCarthy directed the House to begin impeachment inquiry without holding a vote authorizing the inquiry. Is it possible that the House will not act on McCarthy's direction?  If so, I !novote against this being ITN and wait until an inquiring actually begins.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is not reason to think that the chairmen of these committees would do such a thing. Anyone who thinks that is utterly unfamiliar with the history and political positions of any of those men. Also, we don't make our decisions off of unlikely "what if" scenerios. SecretName101 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This was a decision to give a house committee the go-ahead to investigate if there is sufficient evidence for an actual inquiry, whereas the last time in 2019 was after the formal inquiry in front of the full house was started (eg the actual process). In addition to this being just political theater as to try to get the Freedom Caucas to help actually pass the budget and avoid a shutdown. Nearly all reliable sources are downplaying this as the GOP simply playing games as they have nothing tangible to actually impeach Biden over. --M asem (t) 12:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * By this point I think it should be a WP:SNOW close. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 12:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue a SNOW close would be innappropiate, most of the opposition seems to be from people who either evidences not reading the linked articles, or not even reading the guidelines at the top of this very page. If these oppositions were more substantive, yes. But no. SecretName101 (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. It was the launch of an inquiry. You seem to be ignoring every reliable news source and the actual words uttered by McCarthy. This is not the place for original research-based assertions SecretName101 (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Although I do recognize that WP:ITNSIGNIF holds that only a consensus of users is all that is required in order to determine whether to post or close a nomination, I do strongly believe that this was closed too soon and that the reasons for opposing are not equitable with how ITN has handled prior news items of this sort. Regardless of what any of us here think, this is a major political turning point in the United States, affecting the highest office of the land, and turning our eyes away from it on a matter of wording (Vote? Announcement? Authorization? Directive?) doesn't seem to be in keeping with our usual assessment process. To admins: If you need to remove this comment, please at least copy it to WT:ITN. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is "a major political turning point". It's a natural escalation based on their months of their investigation committee. It's one step in the process that will likely result in Biden's impeachment, but we're not at the end point yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Román Chalbaud

 * Weak oppose Article is well sourced, however there's some present tense usage in the text that could be updated. Once these issues are addressed, I'll happily support this. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried changing the tense before the nomination, sorry if I missed some. Could you please point out which these currently are? I can't find them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, article in good shape.  4me689  (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Does a ref for his date of birth exist and full birth name exist? The infobox includes this info but it isn't mentioned in the prose. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the references about his death include his birth date as well. I'm not sure the biographical sources include this info too, but I have added both said footnote and an additional reference for the full name. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Nice. I’m willing to support now, of course AGFing Spanish sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support and ready After checking it. I don't think I quite included everything I wanted when working on it years ago, maybe I'll have to find time now, but article is in great shape. Kingsif (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mike Williams (wide receiver, born 1987)

 * Who knew there were so many wide receivers in American football named Mike Williams?
 * Anyways article looks good, Support PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * pull, I see 3 citation needed tags on Williams's article, whoever Posted this did not check beforehand.  4me689  (talk) 04:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Issues have been dealt with. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 14:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Point Given

 * Support, sourcing seems good. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 13:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Already posted by another admin. --PFHLai (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Wilmut

 * Support Beat me to it! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Éva Fahidi

 * Support, article has no cleanup tags and everything is backed up by sources. <span style="text-shadow:1px 1px 10px #ff0000, 1px 1px 10px #ccc; font-weight:bold; font-family:Century Gothic;">🔥Jalapeño🔥 07:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there a source for her date of birth? It's listed in the infobox but isn't mentioned in the prose. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  21:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Her NYT obit includes her date of birth. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I don’t see any other issues with the article so I’ll support. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Storm Daniel

 * Weak oppose - Libya declares state of emergency, seems to be causing a lot of damage. However, death toll does not automatically mean notability, and we should not support or oppose based off of it. This item is also getting rather stale. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it stale when the Libya situation is just being reported? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 15:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The storm has almost completely dissapated by now, damage has been done. I still think it would be okay to post, but if we were to we better do it soon, PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Significant devastation, especially in Derna, and the latest reports say up to 2,000 people are believed to have died. Johndavies837 (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Unprecedented disaster. Storm just made landfall in Libya, so it is not stale. More than 2,000 people feared dead in Derna alone. Deadliest Medicane ever recorded. The floods in Greece and Istanbul alone are noteworthy. Here are some images from Libya; we should try to find some free ones. 50.101.173.184 (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, however... is the Causalities section needed? It is presenting just a running total if deaths already described in the previous sections. I do see a benefit if a causality count by country table in the Aftermath section. --M asem (t) 17:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support, unfortunate major disaster that absolutely deserves a place in ITN. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 20:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the blurb should focus on the devastation and casualties in Libya. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Quality. Information on meteorological history can be greatly expanded, as well as impacts in particular countries. Certainly clears on notability though. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to have the time to make big updates, however, I did update the blurb and article for the deaths. News source states 2,500 dead with 1,500 bodies having been recovered. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 22:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, estimated death toll in Libya is more than 2000, so it's significant. -Abhishikt (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - The death toll being more than 2,000 says it all, this is a very devastating and very significant event for Libya. ~  Sandy 14156   ( Talk ✉️ )  23:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 23:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;It's expected that the death toll will exceed 10,000. I think we'll probably need to update the death toll on an almost daily basis, and it might even be prudent for us to consider whether an ongoing is warranted. Kurtis (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The death toll in the article is 2,110; the main page says "over 3000". I think we better stick to the conservative figure here, and call it "over 2,000". Renerpho (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That point has become mute as the official death toll continues to rise. It remains important to carefully read the sources before adding figures, especially when the headline of a newspaper doesn't agree with the text. Renerpho (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This was already dealt with several times over in the intervening hours. In the future, incrementing the numbers should be handled through WP:ERRORS, after the article has been updated with the most recent figures.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Sara Sharif murder case

 * Oppose article not in good enough shape and is an orphan. I also don't think this is of global, international significance. It just doesn't make the ITN threshold. Secretlondon (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Seems like a fairly standard local murder case, just with a wider manhunt. The   Kip  17:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per all above. This nomination goes nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as provincial. Suggest SNOW close. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - seems very local. Referenced media are all English - and since when did we use the Daily Mail as a source? Not significant. Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Germany wins the FIBA Basketball World Cup

 * The text is there, just the sources need to be polished. This is a type of a good article for the sport event (once properly sourced). --Tone 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done some work, now there's only one cn tag left. Should be alright now. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! You can delete the last sentence as well if you cannot find a reference, it is not really crucial for the context. I'd like to see some more support, then ready to post. Tone 11:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, both target articles look well-updated with a solid amount of prose. The   Kip  17:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Sufficient WP:ITNQUALITY.—Bagumba (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 15:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post posting comment -- A major flood in Libya and earthquake in Morocco is making world headlines and the photo on Wikipedia's ITN is a picture of Schröder? Almost as if ITN is out of touch with reality and personally, a distasteful thing to do. We had a similar thing happen when the Turkey earthquake and a basketball trivia were posted on ITN. Can we replace the photo with something relevant to Daniel? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Category 5 hurricane/typhoon in each ocean basin in the same season for the first time in the satellite era
Although most hurricanes lose significant strength before landfall, Typhoon Mawar in the Pacific basin struck Guam as a category 4, and Cyclone Mocha struck Myanmar as a category 4. The final effects of Hurricane Lee, in the Atlantic, have yet to be determined. (Better satellite measurements, meteorological understanding, and disaster planning have thankfully led to much lower mortality than similarly-powered storms have caused in the past -- aka why WP ITN should not lean solely on death counts to analyse storms.) I used "hurricane" rather than "typhoon" in the blurb because English-speaking WP leans toward the Atlantic. As well, the Saffir-Simpson scale is linked to hurricanes, with typhoons using a different measure. However, we could easily use typhoon, cyclone, or hurricane/typhoon instead. It is also worth noting that each of these storms developed its strength explosively (great increase in strength over a single day or two), but mentioning that in the blurb would take away from the fact that they existed at all. I used the picture of Mawar since it had the greatest land impact, but we could also use a picture of Lee since it "makes" the story. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment For the first time since the satellite era, all three major ocean basins have produced an (equivalent to) category 5 hurricane / typhoon (some more than one). There have additionally been (equivalent to) category 5 hurricanes in the southern hemisphere: eg. Cyclone Freddy. In total, counting the southern hemisphere, there have been SIX (equivalent to) category 5 storms this year (two in Oceania, one in the Indian Ocean north of the equator, one each in the east and west Pacific, and now one in the Atlantic), but this is far less unusual in the Pacific and Indian oceans than in the Atlantic. What makes it newsworthy is that this has occurred simultaneously, for the first time in the satellite era, in all three oceans.
 * Oppose this is trivia, not news. And it doesn't correlate with a substantial update to any Wikipedia article. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 16:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is trivia and, while a striking sign of climate change, isn't a specific news event fitting in WP:ITN. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 16:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose as trivia + per above. Maybe a good DYK if one can get the article up to par, but not suited for ITN. The   Kip  16:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Agree with The Kip that this could be a DYK candidate. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Needs work The news link provided didn't work so I've added a link to the Washington Post. This indicates that this particular aspect is due to ocean warming such as El Niño and that's driving a lot of extreme weather.  As 2023 seems to be setting weather records in various ways, we should perhaps have a more general topic such as Weather of 2023. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * During an Atlantic high-activity era, El Niño typically results in a near-normal season and La Niña produces an above-normal season. During an Atlantic low-activity era El Niño typically results in a below-normal season and La Niña results in a near-normal season. Too much wind shear and stuff. However this is the record sea temperature year, entering uncharted territory. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Weather records (and similar such records) are not really suitable for ITN. We've had record heat waves and temperatures throughout this summer, and there were suggested to post but that didn't happen, nor should this. --M asem (t) 21:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seems a bit of a reach - especially as two of these were months ago, and Hurricane Lee (2023) doesn't look like it's going to make landfall as a hurricane anytime soon (though might hit northern New England, or parts of Canada as a smaller Hurricane). We've had extreme climate ITNs; and we might well again soon with hurricane season in the Atlantic peaking. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh. I love weather, and I love tropical cyclones in particular, but this is a classic case of trivia. Issues here include such facts as A. the basins considered, while the currently active ones, are arbitrarily chosen and not all of the global basins B. the fact that what defines a category 5 is arbitrary and C. these particukar cyclones weren't concurrently occurring. SO yeah, neat, but that's about all. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Rubén Carolini

 * Oppose Article is basically a stub. Needs some expansion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still a stub. No improvements so many days after nomination. --PFHLai (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Coco Gauff and Novak Djokovic win U.S. Open
*Premature per Masem. Recommend speedy close and repost when men’s final is over. The  Kip  00:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment we usually post the men's and women's winner together since the events are held simultaneously.--M asem (t) 23:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - virtually no prose on any of the three target articles. Massive amount of work needed to bring this up to posting standards. The   Kip  17:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I see no reason why we couldn't post the women's final as a blurb and then update it with the men's final once that's complete. Except for the fact that this page is not ready. All the text is in the lead, then it's just tables and tables. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for the men's final to be finished, as per The Kip. The U.S. Open men's and women's (singles) final results are usually posted together. Vida0007 (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It's bureaucratic to wait on women's because the men's match is pending. Post what's ready, and update as needed. It could be that the men's never meets quality either, or visa versa. But I agree with Muboshgu on the current quality status of the women's page.—Bagumba (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality A lot more work needed on the prose - basically just tables and trivia right now. (The target article should be the tournament, not the winner.)  Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem Flyingfishee (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb Event is significant and article looks pretty standard compared to US Open articles from previous years. Flyingfishee (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Djokovic has just won the men's so have updated this as appropriate. However, pretty sure there's still article quality issues. --M asem (t) 01:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose All three US Open articles are currently a long way from suitable for the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - the target article based on previous postings and ITN/R should be 2023 US Open (tennis). That is itself a long way from suitability though, no prose write-ups as yet. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Mike Yarwood

 * Oppose A good amount of sourcing work is necessary. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  18:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Silly Billy I did some cleanup to make the article seem respectable and the readership has reached over 100K. I suppose that will be the peak and it's downhill from here. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Yarwood was well known in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, and should be included on that basis. Broichmore (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous argument in the face of common sense. There’s no policy to back up that opinion. This guy has obits published in The Times and The Telegraph. Broichmore (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy is WP:BLP, which requires that contentious statements about living (or recently living) people be supported by an inline citation. Until this is done the article isn't of sufficient quality to feature on the Nsin Page. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is based on what is described on both WP:ITNQUALITY and WP:ITNRD. We literally put this in the template (which is what I was quoting). This is not my opinion, the policy is that anyone with a Wikipedia article can get RD if the article quality is good enough, fame or significance doesn’t matter. We don't just post people who are famous into RD. We didn’t post Jimmy Buffett because his article wasn’t good enough. If you don’t like that and think it’s common sense to just post regardless of quality, then start an rfc to change the current policy. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  04:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:ITNRD "...is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines". See also WP:CONLOCAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't policy, this article is not RD quality imo but if WP as a collective decide that this article can be posted I’m not going to go against them. Also I don’t believe there’s any relevant higher community consensus for posting this that would override WP:ITNQUALITY. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  12:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What contentious statements? This article has been improved. Broichmore (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You can start with the orange tagged career section and also the filmography and bibliography per WP:ITNQUALITY: Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased. Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. Generally, "orange" and "red" level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page as well. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs some ref work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * More REFs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mangosuthu Buthelezi

 * Support. No issues present, all the content is supported by references.   Lefcentreright     Discuss    12:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-referenced article does justice to its complex subject. Moscow Mule (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Well-sourced and it gives a good view on the subject. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 18:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I see 1-2 uncited statements but that shouldn't hold this well-written and sourced article from posting. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural support meets minimum requirements This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) 2023 Marrakesh-Safi earthquake

 * Support - Clearly making world headlines and getting continuous coverage. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * When the blurb is posted, the number should reflect the latest death toll figure of 632 Sky News Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Significant coverage, notable effects, article is already in great shape. Fair play to the updaters. The   Kip  02:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Obviously notable with a high death toll. Article generally is in decent shape for ITN. S5A-0043 Talk 03:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll in the hundreds. Significant.  Bremps  ...  03:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality is good for the event. --M asem (t) 03:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and marking as ready. Normally I'm not a fan of rapid posting, but this one is a no brainer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - obvious Nfitz (talk) 04:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Really ought to be posted, unanimous support, and likely a very high and substantial death toll. Rest in Peace to all the victims. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  04:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears to be a cause of significant human displacement and of widespread structural damage, including to a World Heritage Site. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 05:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Death toll now over 600. Davey2116 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support It's getting much news coverage from all over the world. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 06:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2023 Rugby World Cup

 * Oppose - We shall post the result my friend. Don't usually put up the opening of sports events. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You put up the opening of the Women's FIFA World Cup opening though...And it wasn't as hpyed as this Rugby World Cup Agirlwithabrain (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could get behind ongoing. If we did put up the opening of the Women's world cup then I would have disagreed with that. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We didn't, because we don't blurb sport tournament openings (except the Olympics and occasionally similar). Of course, as a fan of both, the women's football was also easily more hyped than this Rugby World Cup - anyone's view of "hype", though, doesn't affect the scale of an event and isn't a good blurb argument. Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - It is a mojor event in the Rugby domain. Agirlwithabrain (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not how an ongoing nomination is supposed to be done. I have boldly fixed it. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  10:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing. Main world event in a top 10 sport featuring countries from South America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Oceania.  Last version in 2019 was watched by not far off a billion people. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those viewing figures should be taken with a pinch of salt. Global viewing figures for sports are very hard to ascertain, and their governing bodies have a vested interest in hyping them up to promote their product. The quoted figure of 857 million for Rugby Union (from the governing body) is absurd. The total combined populations of all of the countries where it's genuinely popular don't even amount to half that figure. Effy Midwinter (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose, we already have several ongoing topics and I am perfectly fine with limiting the ongoing sports for the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. No need to include more sports (basketball World Cup is taking place at the moment as well, for example). --Tone 11:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support These days Rugby (Union) is much more mainstream and played in a lot more countries nowadays than in the old elitist amateur days, with the world cup being the pinnacle of this sport Josey Wales Parley 11:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is becoming silly. We don't "ongoing" tournaments just because they happen to be taking place. The result of the RWC will be posted at the end as per usual and that's it. The only exceptions to this are the Olypmics and the football world cup, as the largest sporting showpieces on the planet. And those are strictly exceptions. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We also did the 2019 Cricket World Cup, and I would expect to do the same this year. Admittedly, we're looking at a worldwide audience heading towards 3 billion with that one, not far off that of the Olympics.  The cricket article also gets an insane amount of pageviews. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not sure about the article quality at this point. I know to expect a lot of tables for tracking this, but there seems to be a lack of prose and citations for what has happened. For example, the opening ceremony being only two sentences long seems lacking. --M asem (t) 12:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And further, we only typically feature lengthy sporting events in ongoing if there is widespread international coverage of the event on a day to day basis. The World Cup and Olympics clearly meet this. I'm not so sure about rugby as a sport. M asem (t) 17:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Major world event with worldwide media attention, and it would be a good thing to have other sports than football featured on the front page. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add that sports tournaments are probably the kind of stuff we should have more precise guidelines for, and, whichever way it goes, this would be a good occasion to work on setting a precedent and potentially even drafting a guideline. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 13:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Looking at the top views, it seems to be tennis that's doing best currently. But there are a lot of different sports jostling for attention and so YMMV.  As they are all routine sports, WP:NOTNEWS applies.  And note that rugby is a form of football too. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rugby is a form of football doesn't add anything, as it was obvious the comparison was with association football (soccer). The question is, what is a "routine sport", and what differentiates it from a sport deserving an article? Why should WP:ITN be centered around a specific sport, even though we tend to avoid biases like this in other domains (presenting news from all countries, from all topics, etc.) Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 21:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Andrew’s traditionally been opposed to any sports coverage on ITN, I’d disregard the “it’s routine” comment entirely. The   Kip  01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Page views comparison. The 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup was suggested to be added to ongoing last month; it was rejected. Comparing the pageviews, |2023_Rugby_World_Cup basketball leads rugby although it has to be sent the basketball's world cup is nearing its conclusion, while rugby's just get started. Also, ITN doesn't base what is posted on page views but on the biases of people here, but I guess you guys should already know that ;) Howard the Duck (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right to notice that the rugby world cup just started, and that its pageviews are much more equivalent to the first days of the basketball world cup. I think we could see in the next few days how it develops, although rugby appears on a stronger rising trend? We'll see! Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 01:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See the |2019_FIFA_Women%27s_World_Cup|2019_Rugby_World_Cup|2019_Cricket_World_Cup 2019 World Cup pageviews (FIFA-W vs cricket vs rugby vs basketball); all world cups except for basketball lasted for more than a month, while basketball's took just over 2 weeks. Another caveat is basketball's have a lot more teams that are not from English speaking nations, vs. rugby and cricket. The 2019 final had both Spanish-speaking countries, and the 2023 final is Germany vs. Serbia (almost USA vs Canada, but they'd settle for third). For the curious, here's the |Copa_Mundial_Femenina_de_F%C3%BAtbol_de_2019|Copa_Mundial_de_Rugby_de_2019|Copa_Mundial_de_Baloncesto_de_2019 Spanish Wikipedia article views during 2019.
 * Rugby World Cup (and Cricket World Cup) also have show some actual prose; interestingly, FIFA-W didn't have prose? I thought this was a requirement? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Slight update, rugby page views are increasing substantially as the tournament gets started, with only the top 5 days in the basketball article's history being above yesterday's rugby page views. Chaotic Enby  ( talk ) 16:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose You really can't compare a rugby union tournament to the Olympics or World Cup in terms of importance. It will get posted once it's over, quality permitting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality; there is a fair amount of prose, but it's mostly unsourced. In terms of whether it warrants ongoing, I think rugby union has a better argument for that than other sports, but isn't in my top 6 off the top of my head, and I can imagine other users see it even lower, so it would probably warrant discussion. Kingsif (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support ongoing it's the world championship of one of the most popular sports in the world, perhaps we should have a standard where any world championship of any sports event over a certain threshold of popularity gets ITNR automatically. Flyingfishee (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Rugby World Cup is already ITNR. This isn't a discussion about ITNR, it's about adding the tournament to Ongoing, and then once it's finished presumably adding it again as a blurb. Which seems overkill to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I know there is no clear-cut criteria for what can be posted as ongoing as a sports item, but I feel like that honor should be reserved just for Olympics and association football World Cups, which we can definitively agree are the two biggest sporting events in the world. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Democratic backsliding in the United States

 * Oppose On Notability, first off, this is not ITN-Material, this does not affect anything outside of the United States, and this is not significant enough. Editor 5426387 (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is day-to-day politics in the US and the type of thing ITN is definitely not appropriate for. Additionally, the update is only this one sentence, nor can readily be expanded from just that statement (without being UNDUE), which really doesn't help. --M asem (t) 21:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Huh? Truly hard to see how this is not only newsworthy but frankly even neutral. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  21:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose so… _-_Alsor (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and close. Per above. Thanks to the OP for the good faith nomination, but this stands no chance of being posted, and might as well be put out of its misery sooner rather than later. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Monique Bégin

 * Oppose No time to add tags at the moment, but seeing a solid amount of unsourced content. The   Kip  20:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Adi Winarso

 * Not sure if you have time / access to additional sources, but I think with some moderate additional expansion this could be another ITN RD player.  Spencer T• C 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Richard Hu

 * Weak Oppose Career section is mostly a list of positions and dates without much depth, a resume in prose format at present.  Spencer T• C 15:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted The career section reads just fine to me.  Schwede 66  23:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lisa Lyon

 * Support Article's a little short, but I don't see any unsourced material. The   Kip  20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Someone tagged the birth info.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed by . --PFHLai (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: G. Marimuthu

 * Oppose Prose seems fairly well-cited, but filmography is mostly unsourced. The   Kip  20:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Shoukat Ali Laleka

 * Support Article looks good enough for RD. Fahads1982 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Per above. Golem08 (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Bulk of career section is election results without information about what he did in those positions; insufficient depth of coverage.  Spencer T• C 00:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Tunku Ampuan Najihah

 * Many citations needed.  starship .paint  (RUN) 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Article is almost wholly uncited. The   Kip  03:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose Not enough prose wise about life, excluding long templates, awards and images. Also, more citations are needed.  Bremps  ...  03:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Cairney

 * Support I've sourced the filmography and expanded the article a little. Should be good to go. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edward Hide

 * Very weak oppose Only a single CN tag, otherwise well-cited. Credit to the updaters for keeping this in good shape. The   Kip  17:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-archive note: Posted per brief discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Candidates. The   Kip  18:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Charles Gayle

 * Oppose Prose is mostly well-cited (only a few CNs), but discography is entirely unreferenced. The   Kip  17:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: María Jiménez

 * Oppose Woefully under-referenced and not accessible to someone unfamiliar with the subject. Yes, she was a singer, but what were her commercial and critical benchmarks? I see nothing about chart positions or awards, and if this page had been written today, I'd understand a reviewer in Australia or India or the UK tagging it for notability. The page talks about "relaunching" a career (when?) but never mentions it fading away in the first place. I've removed unsourced personal information, a category on ethnicity that had no backing to it and a filmography which I blanked per WP:BURDEN due to a troublesome name in there. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not main-page quality. (The film refers to appears to exist, but wasn't linked or referenced.) Moscow Mule (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Enver Mamedov

 * Oppose Article is poorly cited and doesn't even mention his death. Editor 5426387 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Every paragraph is actually cited. However, needs a prose update on death and I'll support. Brandmeistertalk  06:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've added his death and DoB into prose, but there's a list of awards in the infobox that don't have sources (these awards should probably have their own section in the article too). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Edgar Moron

 * Oppose Article is a stub and orange-tagged. Multiple CNs and a dead link. The   Kip  17:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Peter C. Newman

 * Oppose Article needs massive citation work. The   Kip  17:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Margherita Rinaldi

 * Support Nice work with referencing.  Spencer T• C 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Good referencing work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Louis Vitale

 * Support Article is of required quality to post. Golem08 (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This wikibio could use more REFs, particularly the Awards and Recognition section. --PFHLai (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Johnny Kitagawa sexual abuse

 * Oppose - What a grim story, absolutely horrifying, but doesn't have enough significance for ITN IMO PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Regretful oppose - Infuriating and disgusting. I personally would have supported posting this, but ultimately this not a surprise when it comes to the idol industry, particularly in Japan; it's one of those unfortunate dog bites man stories that I think the world has seemingly numbed itself to. I think the most interesting part of this story is how badly and thoroughly it has tarnished the founder's reputation. Yet ITN has, through repeated recent consensus, indicated that it has no interest in stories with a seemingly limited impact or lasting consequences, if the only engine driving them is moral outrage. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  13:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Japanese idol industry is a very weird rabbit hole to dive into
 * But yeah, corporate scandals don't really meet the ITN criteria usually, no matter how horrible. Maybe if this sparks widespread protest and outrage in Japan, but WP:CRYSTAL and all PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Terrible, horrible and absolutely repulsive stuff, but unfortunately not significant enough for ITN. Also the bolded article probably doesn't meet WP:ITNUPDATE with essentially a 1 sentence update (if we keep with the standard that sentences that don't convey more information than the ITN blurbs not counting). The other article Johnny & Associates has a much better update of basically a paragraph, but isn't bolded. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, and a regretful one. A horrible, disgusting, and terrifying story; however, I don't think this is a shock, especially in the Japanese idol industry. It seems to be another story and situation that people have just numbed themselves to. I agree with WaltCip: ITN doesn't have interest with stories that have seemingly limited impact; with this having only moral outrage driving it. I don't remember idol scandals being on ITN ever. Still absolutely sickens me, however. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919  (he/him • t • c) 14:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose In considering such accusations, we go mainly by the result of court cases. The decisive cases happened around 20 years ago and the perp died 4 years ago.  So, as news, this is quite stale and not appropriate for ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Back up. The story isn't the accusation but the public admission and apology. No current or pending civil or criminal proceedings applicable here. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Whitey Von Nieda

 * Support: With Whitey Von Nieda being the first NBA alumni to reach centenarian age, his recent death is notable due to both the coverage it has received and the fact that Von Nieda reached such an exceptional age. I feel like Von Nieda being mentioned in the "recent deaths" panel is warranted. Mungo Kitsch   (talk)  04:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Career section almost entirely uncited and one of the tables in the Career Statistics sections also needs a source. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Hans-Ulrich Klose

 * Oppose Early life and political career sections need refs. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lucrecia Hernández Mack

 * Weak Oppose there are a few citations which need to be added but look like that could easily be done by a Wikipedian skilled in the art and science of citation (AKA not me at 11 at night). ❤History  Theorist❤  05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @HistoryTheorist: looks like the one "citation needed" tag has been cleared and the article is well referenced now – mind checking if anything else may be missing? :) –FlyingAce✈hello 18:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * looks good. I'll Support the nomination. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ian Hamilton

 * Weak Oppose the article could use some more citations before we release it to ITN. ❤History  Theorist❤  23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs citation work. The   Kip  04:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, article has unsourced content. Suonii180 (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -, I've cleaned the tags in the article. —  Knightof  theswords  00:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will rescind my oppose. ❤History  Theorist❤  01:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rescinded. Citations seem adequate. The   Kip  06:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposition rescinded, no longer citation issues. Suonii180 (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Marking as ready (this technically has 3 supports since and  have rescinded their opposes, 3 supports is plenty of consensus for an RD). Scientia potentia est,  Monarch  OfTerror  14:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Up until his playing career in 1999, most of the body is a list of clubs he played for, without any description of his accomplishments or notable achievements there. Similar to a CV in prose format, insufficient depth of coverage IMO.  Spencer T• C 00:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the older refs need refreshing. I ran into a few deadlinks while performing spot-checks on the refs. Please update them. --PFHLai (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted although the article could still be improved, there are no active problems. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Burning Man 2023

 * September 2023 southwestern U.S. floods is also nominated at DYK, but really, it's better suited here. —Cryptic 02:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment It's an event in the desert based in self-sufficiency. "Stranded" is misleading, and most would have stayed for the end burns.—Bagumba (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fyre Festival II, for all purposes. --M asem (t) 03:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a good analogy. There's a difference between a fraudulent festival containing 500 folks that was inherently doomed from the start vs a festival of record with nearly 100k attendees that only had conning done by mother nature. — Knightof  theswords  14:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a major event in a remote, desolate location was always set up for a problem like this. While not a scam, it is about people with disposable income making a poor choice. M asem (t) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * NYT Quote (Emphasized): The Pershing County Sheriff’s Office said the cause of death of one person was unclear and was still under investigation but that it did not initially appear to be related to the weather. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Local event. Bedivere (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * — Knightof  theswords  14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - one (possibly related) death so far. 70,000 stranded leans in the favour of the blurb, but given the floods are now over, I don't think it'll reach the severity required. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 05:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose — Content on ITN needs to be significant, not interesting. If you're looking for a "compelling story", DYK may be of interest. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNPURPOSE - To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them (which is what I was referring to with the "interesting" story bit). If you have an issue with that, take it to WT:ITN and propose it be removed. — Knightof  theswords  14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a textualist interpretation of what ITN is. Standards have changed as more extreme weather events have occurred. The flooding aspect of this blurb is not exceptional for the world nor the country. If hundreds had died—ergo, an exceptional flood—such an event would be suitable for ITN. A major scientific discovery meets the criterion you mentioned even though it may not be in the news. There is a degree of conservatism that is necessary here. Geographic bias is a considerable factor in ITN, including this nomination. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a textualist interpretation of what ITN is. Standards have changed as more extreme weather events have occurred. The flooding aspect of this blurb is not exceptional for the world nor the country. If hundreds had died—ergo, an exceptional flood—such an event would be suitable for ITN. A major scientific discovery meets the criterion you mentioned even though it may not be in the news. There is a degree of conservatism that is necessary here. Geographic bias is a considerable factor in ITN, including this nomination. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support. "70 thousand" should read "70,000" or "70&thinsp;000". It's worth noting that this morning it was announced that the death appears to have been from intoxication, not the weather. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would have been more willing to support a few days ago, but I feel like this event is getting a little stale PrecariousWorlds (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by staleness? Rager7 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose First off, this does not feel significant enough to be ITN-material, and it is at most DYK. secondly, This event has been going on for a few days, and it is thus stale. This also has no impact outside of Nevada, so it is not that important. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not stale; not even a week old, let alone older than the oldest item on ITN and again, we don't dismiss stories because they happened in one location for whatever reason. Also, can we please stop with the "this is DYK-material" mantra? However good-faith these statements are, they come off as just lazy rationales for opposing (especially considering a lot of the topics on ITN have articles that don't meet any of the WP:DYK eligibility criteria). — Knightof  theswords  14:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose nah, not that significant. Local and stale. Per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Or additionally,
 * — Knightof  theswords  14:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Local", "stale" and "Per all above" are exactly my reasons for opposing it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it stale, and what about it being local is an issue? — Knightof  theswords  14:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it stale, and what about it being local is an issue? — Knightof  theswords  14:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - the event is not even a week old, and thus by default is not stale; additionally, per repeated consensus on WT:ITN, staleness refers to any item older than the oldest ITN blurb, even if it's seven days old or more (the oldest item is from August 23), so the arguments that oppose due to staleness are invalid. — Knightof  theswords  14:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not bludgeon discussions by responding to each post in opposition to your view. M asem (t) 15:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe make !votes based on policy? Seriously, this willingness to ignore policy when it suits us is why ITN was on the gallows a few weeks ago. — Knightof  theswords  16:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The policy is "We talk it out civilly, and follow what the consensus tells us to do". The reason ITN was on the gallows is because people aren't willing to let consensus be consensus, and want to argue and berate and WP:BLUDGEON every discussion that isn't going their way.  Back tf down dude, you've said quite enough.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that; we've been doing that for a while now, but that never produced any results. — Knightof  theswords  17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you can certainly keep doing what you're doing with the arguing and bludgeoning, and we can come back later to ANI and see if they have anything different to say as a result. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article quality for both bolded articles is sufficient, event is current and covered sufficiently by news to indicate significance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as a story of insufficient impact. And I'll note that "Please do no oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country" is written because very significant events are sometimes largely restricted in impact to single country, not because significance does not matter as a criterion. Nobody here is opposing because this is a US-specific event; we're opposing because at the scale we usually consider, it's not significant. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Vanamonde. Hard to see the significance in deaths resulting from, as stated by the above, poor planning combined with force majeure. Based on the outcomes of recent prior nominations, it looks like ITN as a whole seems to be steering away from posting disasters that don't carry any long-term significance. That's not an entirely bad thing. Duly signed, ⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  17:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as blurb is misleading per Bagumba. The roads were closed off well in advance of when people would be trying to leave anyway. "Porto-potties at Burning Man worse than usual due to lack of pump truck access to Playa" and "Weekend Burning Man attendees unable to show up for two days of partying and then bail immediately due to road closure" don't seem ITN-worthy. Would support a later story if BLM revokes the land use permit due to insufficient cleanup, but we won't know that for months. Folly Mox (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Antonio Galves

 * Comment, can you add a citation for the last section and add an explanation for how Galves is related to that (other than the name)? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at the article. Reference added, and explanation of the connection clarified, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted per additional support being given beyond mine; feel free to pull if that's an issue. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Anatol Ugorski

 * Support I tagged one reference with unreliable source but I don't see that as a problem for RD. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I took it out, - there are others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: María Teresa Campos

 * Support Article looks good enough for RD, AGFing Spanish sources. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  15:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, a very popular Spanish TV presenter. Article ready (improved by _-_Alsor, good job !). Alexcalamaro (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alexcalamaro, also for your early updates! _-_Alsor (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. AGF all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Molly Holzschlag

 * Support Article looks good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  11:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Article looks fine. Ahiijny (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Well sourced, no reason not to post now. Jusdafax (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Necmettin Cevheri

 * Support. Looks good to me. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Any more materials on what he accomplished as minister of ...? even deputy prime minister? --PFHLai (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted but, it would be great if you could add info that would answer PFHLai's questions above! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will try, thanks, Egeymi (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yunus Bandu

 * Support. Looks good to me. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Any more materials on what he accomplished as regent? --PFHLai (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added one more stuff about his accomplishment as regent. It's hard to find more about him in national publications. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 14:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adam Exner

 * Support Article is well sourced. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced, and covering all the major contours of his life in detail.  Bremps  ...  01:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's sourcing, depth and length is good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is in great condition. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - A fine example of good writing based on sources. Jusdafax (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Albert Azaryan

 * Oppose Sourcing issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite a few paragraphs with zero footnotes. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

New PM in Vanuatu

 * The update is one-sentence but I guess there is not that much to say? Still, I'd like to see more text before I am comfortable by posting. Tone 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose The first article has not been adequately updated. The lead doesn't mention anything about this.  It also doesn't cover anything about how he became PM, just that it happened.  Needs some expansion.  The second article should not be bolded, it does not contain sufficient prose about the event to qualify as a bolded link.  If these problems are fixed, ping me to re-assess.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jayron32 I expanded a little bit the election mention on their biography. Bedivere (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, like right now, the lead states "He is Prime Minister of Vanuatu on four occasions, most recently from June 2015 to February 2016. Kilman was previously Prime Minister from December 2010 to April 2011 and from May to June 2011, though his premiership was subsequently annulled by a court of law." That is both grammatically incorrect and factually incorrect.  That needs some major work before we can post this.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes on blurb, No on picture, I don't think it needs a picture, never the less it's still a new head of government, just remember to get the article and it sources fixed first.
 *  4me689  (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * it is not a head of government in a significant country.
 * ITN doesn't particularly care about that and I'd strongly recommend you strike this comment. What is or isn't a significant country is highly subjective, and voicing opposition to something because of the country's "insignificance" goes against point 2 of WP:ITNCDONT. The   Kip  18:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip, I said no on picture, not on the blurb, never the less, I'll still reword it.  4me689  (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment  I would probably note how he got ousted rather than succeeded in an election. Other than that, I would probably say it's fine.
 * River10000 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose on quality - Article has only a single-sentence update, with no further details given. The   Kip  18:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Kip It's been expanded (a bit). Bedivere (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Include the blurb and picture. Vanuatu is such a small country that representing them on the main page would be superb! Bedivere (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I know that. I see a sentence that needs referencing and that's all. I still support this. Bedivere (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I could easily find a reference for that, and it's ready to go IMHO. Bedivere (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Articles also need to be updated sufficiently, see WP:ITNUPDATE: The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient. They also need to be minimally comprehensive, per WP:ITNQUALITY: Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items..
 * This is the concern expressed by other !voters here. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did extend that little sentence there was regarding their election as PM. Just for the record Bedivere (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's no separate article about the event and the nominated articles don't give it much prominence or give a coherent narrative. For example, Prime Minister of Vanuatu has a section called Disputes which says nothing about this even though the outcome depended on controversial rulings by the Supreme Court. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - the Sato article needs more sources.  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter Arlen

 * Support Article is adequate for R.D. Ollieisanerd  (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Douglas Lenat

 * Oppose Article needs extensive citation work - for instance, there's just a single ref in the "Background and education" section, and only two in the "Research" section. The   Kip  18:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Edith Grossman

 * Support Article quality seems good enough. Extensively cited. The   Kip  18:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well cited. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gonna go ahead and tag @Admins willing to post ITN - this has been tagged as ready for about two days now. The   Kip  19:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 01:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gary Wright

 * Support The quality of this article is excellent and already far superior to that of Steve Harwell. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well-sourced and thorough article. JumbledPasta (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per usual, the discography/charting section is almost wholly uncited. The   Kip  18:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Discography section unsourced. Support All issues fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I've added sources for discography and charts. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The reliability of some of the sources isn't the best in the world but it's good enough for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - Clearly ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD.  Spencer T• C 02:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) 2023 unrest in Kirkuk

 * Premature The article needs significant work and as such had to be draftified first. Honestly there's no significance internationally, so this should not be on ITN. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait for the actural civil war to happen before we post the blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Recommend close With all due respect - general lack of notability aside, the article and blurb itself are both in disastrous shape. There’s arguments to be made this should still be a draft, and as such I’m recommending closure. The   Kip  17:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Snow close provinical, crystal, article quality. Ooh baby, a triple. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(Pulled) RD: Steve Harwell

 * Support - a little on the short side, but should be fine for RD. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 16:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Opposer per WP:ITNQUALITY. I think this is too short to the point of not being "minimally comprehensive". From a quick read, what stands out to me is there's nothing on his early life (like where he was raised, what high school he went to), it doesn't say what year he formed Smash Mouth, has one unsourced sentence to note that he is "best known for" the big hit single that probably needs to be more of the bio, and it doesn't say anything about the mother of his child (wife? girlfriend?) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support – Article is short, but good quality and well cited. –DMartin 18:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Muboshgu - there's literally nothing in the "Career" section between forming the band (1994) and 2006, this omitting a huge chunk of the entire career of the band that he is only notable for. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support  when all sources are fixed, but after that he should be included. R.I.P to this All-Star.  4me689  (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article should be expanded but it appears to be good enough to post. Johndavies837 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support The article in question covers the main contours of his life and is verifiable.  Bremps  ...  23:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose More detail needed on his career with Smash Mouth for this to be adequate. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article needs some expansion but it is of good enough quality as it doesn't omit any major items, the main information which readers would be looking for is mostly in the article. Happily888 (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Not wowed by the article quality. But what's there is adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering he just died, and given the opposers saying its not comprehensive with examples, it seems we could have waited to at least have the page cover as much as basic obituaries (The New York Times)—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a basic obituary. It's a full-scale news article from a powerhouse outlet which pays its staff to work together quickly. This is what your basic Boise decedent gets in the line of "tribute", and our article covers those bases (minus the POV). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Except we're not talking about a random Steve from Boise, and all it minimally takes is paraphrasing from one (of many) readily-available comprehensive obits. —Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ...(minus the POV): Undesirable to omit POV per the WP:YESPOV policy:  —Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Random Steve (not his real name) has a lead that calls him a revered patriarch who left his descendants a legacy of unwavering loyalty and is now in the doubtlessly warmest embrace of his beloved wife, Peggy. That's the sort of POV I mean. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to say that most people know this Random Steve from "All-Star" (or one of its videos). I think that's a pretty widely held belief in the mainstream media. And yeah, there are other factoids out there in the sources (including your example) that could make this link to a better than decent overview of the man behind the myth. It's not stubby enough to pull, though. At least that's what I'd opine if I still worked here. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose Two cn tags and article is a bit lacking in terms of his career. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And zero mention of "All Star" now. —Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Restored, by virtue of the edit summary simply not being true. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull. I'm in agreement with TDKR. For being arguably the most well-known member of a fairly prolific band, this article is pretty sad. A certain depth of coverage of a person's life should be needed even for RD, and this article doesn't have it. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull there are two cn tags in important content of the article and much of it is about his private life. Far from the type of article we would/should post. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull If this article had been written today and the subject wasn't dead, it would have been instantly merged with Smash Mouth as there's barely anything on the page about him as an individual, except for a blow-by-blow of his physical decline. And even the Smash Mouth bit is barely there. I took five minutes to add from a reference that was already there his reason for leaving rap in the early 1990s, as that's about his personal artistry besides Smash Mouth. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pulled Quality concerns were noted before this was posted, and there's been significant continued quality concerns after it has been posted. Pulling until those have been addressed.  After the article has been fixed per all of the notes above have been addressed, this can be re-posted.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection. At the time I posted this there was a roughly 2:1 consensus supporting. That has clearly changed to a degree that justifies pulling the RD pending article improvement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No fault on your part, in case that wasn't clear. It was a legitimate read of consensus at the time you posted it.  You were fine.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Roach

 * Are there refs for the table of Head coaching record at the bottom of this wikipage, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added one (it doesn't verify everything (like the one national ranking) but it should be enough). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extra footnote, BeanieFan11. With 1100+ words, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Formatting looks fine. Earwig has nothing to complain about. Footnotes can be found at expected spots. There is a single {cn} in the table of the subject's coaching record, but it's just one and it's not anything controversial. IMO, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Piloo Reporter

 * Support Cited, long enough.  Bremps  ...  23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article's sourcing, length and depth is sufficient for RD. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  09:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 06:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed; stale) Resignation of Krišjānis Kariņš

 * Both of those sources are from August 14, almost three weeks ago. —Cryptic 01:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Stale - Fine if posted when new, but old news now This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose beyond the fact that it's stale, we usually don't post resignations. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  03:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is stale & what’ll be notable enough for ITN is when a Latvian PM comes to power. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose and recommend close per all above. The   Kip  06:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Carme Junyent

 * You just caught me with the intention of creating her article and nominating her afterwards. Thanks for anticipating. I'm working on expanding its content, which I think it needs to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's wonderful, thank you for your help. --Brunnaiz (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support This article is still a bit short, but it looks alright! Oltrepier (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support work done. I think it's good enough. When you can, can you take a look at the article and let me know how you see it? Thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is still room for writing improvement, but you added relevant information to the article, so thank you a lot! --Brunnaiz (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Heath Streak

 * Comment See In_the_news/Candidates/August_2023 for the earlier report of his death, alluded to above. Nigej (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced. Nigej (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced article. Fahads1982 (talk) 09:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

(Attention Needed) Eritrean clashes in Tel Aviv

 * At this point, I'm leaning towards oppose, but I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. Riots happen all the time, all over the world, for all kinds of different reasons. While the high number of injuries is concerning, I'm not convinced that this event will have major repercussions beyond what has already transpired. If the Israeli government does something drastic&mdash;for instance, deporting all 25,000 Eritrean asylum seekers living within its borders&mdash;I'd support blurbing it. Otherwise, I'd need a compelling reason for getting behind a blurb in this case. Kurtis (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for pretty much the same reasons cited by Kurtis. Doesn’t appear to have much immediate or lasting impact, especially considering they’ve already been suppressed. The   Kip  02:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Similar clashes happened in Canada and in Switzerland (per the Current Portal news links here) so it appears to be part of a broader story. If this can presented as such in the blurb that would be better and would raise its significance further. Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing, this doesn't seem to be an isolated story, and therefore that raises its significance. Flyingfishee (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Kurtis. This doesn't seem to have a major impact, not yet at least. Also I linked the target article since it wasn't linked for some reason. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  07:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to a lack of importance. It's notable enough for an article, but not for ITN - unless there's a major reaction such as severing of international relations or a large number of deportations. The blurb is far too long. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 09:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait. Not ready to write this story off already. Netanyahu just demanded all the protestors be deported. Might see some protests to this decision as well. Story is still developing. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * move it's international. The same thing was in the diaspora in Oslo too (possible elsewhere). Tel aviv was biggest, but its not country specific. Maybe 2023 Eritrean diaspora clashes.81.16.1.205 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Article seems to be in good shape, news sources have covered the topic in a manner that indicates significance. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amin Syam

 * Support Appropriate depth of coverage, fully referenced.  Spencer T• C 02:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: N. Valarmathi

 * Please remove this mistaken identity nomination (see Talk:N. Valarmathi) Celjski Grad (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Raymond Moriyama

 * Oppose Multiple uncited passages. The   Kip  18:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Uncited issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Richardson

 * Still needs some ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: p  b  p  19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support when all sources are fixed, but after that he should be included in recent deaths because the news is on it and he was a prominent New Mexican governor.  4me689  (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's a good amount of uncited information throughout the article. Also I implore editors to read WP:ITNRD or the little notice at the bottom which says Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion) Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. before !voting. To meaningfully contribute please discuss the quality of the article. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Still unsourced content. Either it needs sourcing or it needs deleting. Nigej (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for posting, one cn tag in an overall well cited article shouldn't stop it from posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per TDKR. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

RD: Jimmy Buffett

 * Oppose RD right now, but willing to switch once fixed As mentioned by MonarchOfTerror below, there are several problems. If fixed, I'll change it to support. Also, he's not big enough for a blurb. If this was Paul McCartney or Ringo Starr, then maybe or for sure. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As a long time reader and supporter of Wikipedia, I recognize the importance of the impact Jimmy Buffett's live shows had on so many people in the U.S. - to just have a good time and take a fun break. He may not have been huge on the charts overseas, but in the U.S. - during the formative 60s-70s rock and roll, he found a true/huge following for his 'brand' so to speak.
 * So - for a long-time west-coaster /California guy, Jimmy's passing is noteworthy. Dougbeadle (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose 5 cn tags and additionally several other unsourced paragraphs and statements throughout the prose; discography, filmography and concerts and tour sections nearly entirely uncited. The article needs major ref work before this can get posted. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  13:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: p  b  p  19:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why?—Bagumba (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose All of the lists and at least 3 sections are either unsourced or nearly so. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose solely on quality due to multiple unreferenced sections. RIP to a music legend. The   Kip  19:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Legendary music figure in the USA even if not known abroad this should be posted on ITN 107.115.147.81 (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing a RD or a blurb? Kevinishere15 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no blurb proposal in the nomination. Your comment only sidetracks the discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said - Thank You.
 * If not clear from the above reply to TheCorriynial above, I SUPPORT Jimmy Buffett's recent death to be listed in a RECENT DEATHS. Dougbeadle (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Curbon7 (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support RD Oppose Blurb see earlier comments on generally opposing RDB for non-heads-of-state This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Conditional support once more citations are added. This article looks a lot better than it did yesterday, but it still has a bit of a way to go. There's still 6 CN tags in here, plus the wholly unsourced filmography appearances. Once those get fixed, I'll bump my vote up to a full support. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Moot FYI, this was by a wide margin, the top read article on Wikipedia yesterday, getting over 1.6 million views. For comparison, ITN's top blurb got just about 13 thousand.  So, whether this is run as an ITN blurb, RD, or not at all, won't make much difference.  As for quality, there's some discussion of particular issues on the article's talk page but I don't get the impression that they are a big deal.  Me, I'd not heard of this guy before and so his name meant little to me.  I was curious about whether they were related to Warren Buffet and so was gratified to find that the article explains their relationship. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Article and references seems to be in good shape now. A true Gulf Coast legend! --CaptainTeebs (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still orange tagged. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 03:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked and found that the lists of tours and TV appearances had been tag-bombed by an ITN regular. These are quite tedious appendices at the bottom of a long article – 4,600 words of prose in 99Kb of Wikistuff.  The article already has 158 citations and so most readers would think that it's impressively well- verified.  But ITN wants to see a citation for every appearance on Letterman, Leno and the other talk shows.  Like it matters.  In the meantime, our readership continues to read the article regardless and so it was still the top read article for the second day. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If it was one or two cn tags that's one thing, but tagging completely or almost completely unsourced sections is hardly tag-bombing. If Buffett is so popular you'd think that someone would come along and try to actually source the bits that aren't sourced, wouldn't you?  This is the problem with entertainers - their articles get stuffed up with trivia by their fans, who are generally not regular editors and therefore don't source things. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's tag-bombing because it seems to have been done in an indiscriminate way from 10,000' without regard to the nature of the content. It seems purely concerned with cosmetic appearance rather than actual fact-checking.
 * The section that ought to be getting attention is the paragraph about the death because that is the specific news that we're reporting. That currently has a citation to the Washington Post but it does not verify the sentence about Paul McCartney that it's attached to.  It's no good for the preceeding two sentences either and they don't have other citations.
 * So, checking for the presence of citations in a facile way is quite inadequate because there's no guarantee or mechanical linkage which ensures that the text corresponds to the citation. When you have a hurly-burly of many editors and many edits then it's quite likely that you'll get garbling per Chinese whispers, as in this case.  The bigger the article, the more likely this is to happen.
 * Other main page articles such as TFA and DYK tend to avoid this issue because they have a primary author who is familiar with the topic and details and so is able to keep it coherent. Hot news articles are otherwise and so ITN's fact-checking should be more specific and focussed rather than wasting time on ancient and unimportant details that no-one cares about.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I cut the McCartney claim out of the article entirely until a reliable source can be found for it that isn't TMZ - It looks like someone cut the TMZ reference but did not replace it with anything else that specifically verified the claim. I also fixed a few other sources in that section that were not pointed at the correct sentences. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 01:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There are still lots of readers of this article but the top spot has now passed to Steve Harwell. It's remarkable that, because Harwell didn't achieve so much and so doesn't have long lists of awards and appearances, that their article has been posted straight away, even though it has just has 22 citations.  Quality! Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support: Based on how noteworthy he was compared to other people mentioned in RD. The article doesn't need to be perfect, and with more eyes on the article via RD, it will improve in quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie Philosopher (talk • contribs) 17:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: This article has received significant attention since nomination and is suitable for RD. CoatCheck (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article needs source work with two sections needed refimporvement. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I added citations to Buffett's tour history... now his filmography remains. As of me typing, it's pretty late where I live, but I intend to ensure he gets on the main page; anyone is free to help. I support adding him to RD once it's determined he's ready, though, if I had my druthers, I would put him up now regardless. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 02:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support especially after Brainulator9's recent edit that cited one of the two tagged sections. Article seems good enough. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sad to say in this case, but references alone do not make an article.  The article is a mess; the music section is a bullet list without the bullets.  — <span style="border:1px solid #93010b;background:#ef0000;padding:2px;color:#efe6e6;text-shadow:black 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em; font-family: Georgia;"> AjaxSmack  14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. RIP Jimmy RD CoatCheck (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Milka Stojanović

 * Support Serbian-language sources that are cited are reliable. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just started updating, and will continue later today . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I did what I could for today, but can't confirm that the Serbian sources support the facts. I added Operissimo (in German), but have no time today to make it a ref. We might wait if we get an obit in English, for everybody to verify more easily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I made it a ref now for some more precision of places and dates, and for more roles. There are many short obits on German radio, - one is a source, the others are similar, but I found nothing in English (besides translations). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead has "regularly at the Bolshoi", but that should also be in the body. GSL (Operissimo) doesn't have it. - That she performed there is sourced (by BR), but the "regular guest" would need a reference, or be modified in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

(Posted) Tharman Shanmugaratnam elected as the next Singaporean President

 * Comment Lede should be updated and there should be at least some prose in the aftermath section before posting. Overall, the article is in good condition. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These should be out soon. – robertsky (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak oppose Overall, the article is well sourced (minus the two/three cn tags). The aftermath section is empty as well, however I understand this section will be expanded once more info is known. Once the aftermath section is added and properly sourced, I'll support this decently sourced article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose solely due to the lack of an aftermath section. Once that’s filled in, easy support. The   Kip  17:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The president appears to be a largely ceremonial role in Singapore, most of the governing power is held by the prime minister. - Indefensible (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks to be in good shape, as far as I can tell. Not sure what the hubbub about "aftermath" is above, that seems like the kind of historical assessment that can only be given after a significantly long time frame, certainly at least months or years later.  The article has sufficient prose about the election and its results, and is well written and well referenced.  Checks every box for me.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Aftermath section has been changed to Reaction section by, of which I agree. There may be other sections appearing over the coming days, i.e. post-election reactions, calls for reforms, etc. as seen in 2011 Singaporean presidential election. – robertsky (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: It might be better to include an image of Tharman to accompany the blurb. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The president of Singapore is a ceremonial role, and these typically don't get posted. Khuft (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITNELECTIONS, elections for a head of state (such as the president of Singapore) are routinely deemed notable enough to post. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That's exactly the rule I was referring to. A change in the "holder of the office which administer the executive" traditionally gets blurbed. According to the list cited on the policy you refer to, that's the Prime Minister of Singapore, not the President. See: List of current heads of state and government Khuft (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through the corresponding discussion here, but considering that the president of Singapore does has some executive powers, it is incorrect to say that the president of Singapore is a "powerless figurehead", nor is it a completely ceremonial role. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim that the President of Singapore is a "powerless figurehead", I highlighted that he's not the holder of the office which administer the executive. So there's no automatism that the President of Singapore should be posted - in contrast to a change in PM of Singapore, which would be. It's not ITN/R. A case can be made why other offices should be posted (for Singapore or any other country), but no such case has been made so far in this case. Why is this election important? What will it change within the political system of Singapore? Khuft (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm back. I should have been more specific - unlike ceremonial presidents elsewhere, the president of Singapore has some executive powers that the prime minister of Singapore does not have. See robertsky's comment below. You are correct that the prime minister of Singapore is the main role that administers the executive, but dismissing the presidency as merely "ceremonial" is disregarding the executive powers the presidency has that the prime minister doesn't have. The corresponding discussion established consensus that "powerless figureheads" that have no executive powers should not be ITN/R - does this apply to the president of Singapore, which has been proven to be more than a ceremonial role? JaventheAldericky (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support in Principle. Issues still need to be resolved. But the president of Singapore does appear to be more then simply a "ceremonial" position. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See my reply above. The colour-coded List of current heads of state and government has typically served to determine which role is the "most important" one in any given country. In Singapore, that would be the Prime Minister. Khuft (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm aware, and I don't completely disagree that this should at least be de-classified as a ITN/R item for that reason. But I don't see why we have to pick just one office's elections to blurb. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Other offices can of course be proposed, and if a good case is made why they are notable, they can also be blurbed (Queen Elizabeth II's death being the obvious example). I have seen no arguments so far, however, why this presidential election was special at all. The reasoning that the President of Singapore has some constitutional powers is not convincing in and of itself either - many such ceremonial roles have residual powers, e.g. to dissolve Parliament. But a quick glance at the history of Singapore would show that in this particular case, the position of Prime Minister has been paramount since the country's independence. Khuft (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The president holds virtually no power in Singapore. Only prime ministerial changes are of any significance and are infrequent (for e.g. Lee Kuan Yew who served for the longest time as PM). Gotitbro (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which also makes this non-ITNR. Gotitbro (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - we generally don't post the transition of head's of states that are not also heads of government, barring some exceptional circumstance. -- Rockstone  Send me a message!  21:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've suggested an altblurb. I'll need to log off for now, but I'll return later to address any concerns. JaventheAldericky (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment While this is not ITNR as the president does not hold the executive, that fact alone does not prevent it from being posted if it is significant. For example, we posted the election of Petr Pavel, which was seen as a major benchmark for assessing support of NATO. Is there a broader geopolitical story here? Curbon7 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Emphasis. Curbon7 (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support article is of sufficient quality. Lightoil (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment For those who says the Presidential role is ceremonial, it is largely is, until it isn't. The President can choose not to assent to any new laws. Yes, the Parliament can veto the veto, but this is also a feature in other countries like US. The President has the choice to not sign against any death sentences, and did so. The President has the choice not to release any past financial reserves which estimated to be in trillions of dollars. Imagine that the President refused to release the reserves to deal with COVID-19 pandemic against better reasonings or judgement? ($40+ billions were spent ). The President has the choice to start any corruption investigation, even against the Prime Minister. (We have yet to come down to this, fortunately.) The President has the power to grant clemency to any sentence, which isn't afforded to the Prime Minister. The power to grant clemency was used as a geopolitical bargaining chip, as seen in 2016 Standard Chartered bank robbery where a promise not to cane the foreign national upon conviction for robbery was made before extradition of the said person went through. The reason it is largely ceremonial for now is due to a general alignment of... interests/thoughts(?) between the President, Prime Minster, and Government. – robertsky (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * These are standard powers that most non-executory heads of state hold in various countries, and does not really take away from the much more significant role of the head of government (here the PM). Similarly we did not post Xi Jinping's re-appointment as President as well since he already held the mantle of the much more powerful role of the CCP Secretary. On ITN, we look for changes to heads of state/government that hold real power and not one that is residual. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Xi's reappointment is not comparable to this, since Xi is holding both position, but here are two separate roles by two separate persons. – robertsky (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That was an example of what we do not effectively post, for another take the recent Presidential change in Vietnam which wasn't as well (the main centre of power here again being with the Secretary). Gotitbro (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per robertsky. S5A-0043 Talk 04:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment It's both ways and I was thought of being divided after reading the comments and the results (I was currently doing analysis of the elections just as usual for local trends and what I did in GE2020), I don't think that might have be recognizable or able to help Singapore in a big way, but however, being the highest role in the state and meeting them (I did met both Halimah and Tharman before for the record) was a privilege, I will support as well. Sculture65 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: further, I will also want to suggest a Did You Know? on both the Singapore Portal and the main portal, but I not sure what to do (long time I haven't touch Wikipedia though), so I will need some help about this one. Thank you. Sculture65 (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created a nom per your suggestion. Thanks. JaventheAldericky (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Oh and please do support Battle of the Buskers as well, which I also began my project. Sculture65 (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose ceremonial figurehead with mostly nominal powers. AryKun (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per AryKun. Banedon (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose as others have said, President of Singapore is a de facto ceremonial position. Yes they theoretically wield executive powers, but that's just indulging in "what if" situations.  Satellizer el Bridget <sup style="color:magenta;">(Talk)  05:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Posted There was initial reluctance by early commenters about article quality but otherwise, those editors were supportive of this being a notable event. The quality issues have since been resolved. Since then, there has been discussion whether the role is ceremonial or holds enough executive power for this to meet ITN's notability criteria, with those voters roughly evenly balanced. I find that overall, there are more editors in support than in opposition due to the early voters who were only held back by concerns that have since been resolved.  Schwede 66  22:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pull - This is a SUPERVOTE. Even with the justification provided, I count the ratio being 7 Support !votes : 6 Oppose !votes (excluding the nominator, posting admin & myself). Oppose on notability, I don't see this ceremonial change being In the News. 119.157.66.93 (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I counted 8 support to 5 oppose.  Schwede 66  05:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would we exclude the nominator? I've always counted them as an implicit support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Many of the early supports (and one of the early opposes) were based solely on article quality, since for a long time this nomination was mislabeled as being ITNR. I not only don't see consensus to post this; I see a positive consensus against posting it.  If discussion here is going to be treated as a sysop suggestion box, with comments contrary to WP:ITNPURPOSE accorded zero weight, that's all well and good; but if so, it's got to be done a lot more consistently than it has been.  Otherwise, pull. —Cryptic 02:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "since for a long time this nomination was mislabeled as being ITNR." It was labelled ITN/R for only less than 5 hours... if that is considered a long time on ITN, we might need to consider urgently working on adjusting expectations... JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support. If this was the Irish presidential election (same non-executive president, same population size), it would be posted in a heartbeat. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It probably wouldn't, at least currently. It seems that recently consensus for it doesn't develop. For example, in May this year we didn't post the president of Latvia (see archived discussion) and in March this year we didn't post the the president of Vietnam (see archived discussion). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Singapore is 5 times more populous than Latvia, and the presidential election is by assembly. The Vietnamese president didn't have a dedicated elections article (it seems that the election is via assembly, and not via popular vote). Even the Võ Văn Thưởng article right now leaves a lot to be desired on how he became president.
 * The Irish presidency is going to be posted come hell or high water. If it's not posted except to quality issues, an admin can permanently ban me from Wikipedia. I'm that confident. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends on the exact scenario I suppose. It could be posted, iirc we did post the 2018 president of Ireland, but ITN is so inconsistent so unless it's obviously notable then the assortment of random people that show up to the discussion decides if it gets posted or not. I wouldn't bet my life on it, you might get a ton of people really concerned with systemic bias on ITN who will oppose it for being non executive leader in the western world, you could also get a ton of people with fairly comparatively low or even no significance standard who would just support it no matter what. It's just how ITN works. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This election had a turnout of 93%. Singapore is not the most democratic of places, but there's good reason to believe those numbers. Singapore is not even guaranteed to have an election; the last time there was supposed to be an election, only one candidate was eligible and she was elected via walkover. This article is the best article among the four non-RD ITN entries. Why deprive our readers of such quality and timely content? This kind of election happens once in six years, and we're not even guaranteed of one in six years; we really are opposing such articles that will stay for a week at most, never to be seen again in six years? We'd have two Olympics articles in six years, and just one (not guaranteed) of this. Seriously people, what's wrong with you? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was a bit needlessly uncivil. Some people just have really high significance standards for ITN, some of them very consistently so and some of them don't like ITN/R either. You could try asking someone else with a more concrete, decided stance, I myself don't really have a defined standard yet, I'm still exploring where I find myself philosophically when it comes to ITN significance, so I always flip flop between really high or really low standards. Also there are various reasons people opposed this, some people just think that all non executive heads of state shouldn't be posted bar extremely exceptional circumstances and if they consistently apply that standard that's fine. It's just how ITN discussions work with how vague WP:ITNSIGNIF is. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose Mostly ceremonial role as stated above. I don't think this should've been posted, but I'm not really sure if it should be pulled, it might be a fait accompli at this point. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  08:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Post-posting oppose and pull. We don't post ceremonial roles. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support The article's quality is quite good, which is what pushes it over the top for me. A number of opposers are stating that (not calling you out specifically Amakuru, you're just right above me!), but this is simply not true. While most of these ceremonial elections are indeed relatively minor, we have posted them when they are are part of a broader regional story. As I mentioned above, we posted the election of Petr Pavel to the ceremonial role of president because there was a broader regional story about Czech realignment towards the west following the Babiš years. While the broader story isn't entirely clear in this case, the article indicates that this may be part of a broader racial realignment within an extremely polarized country. Curbon7 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there's some specific angle to this that needs to be given to readers, then the hook should focused on that, although unless it was a really momentous thing, I doubt the community would support it - we can't cover all news everywhere, after all. However, this was presented as a simple change in the head-of-state, and appears to have been nodded through despite there being little evidence that this particular head of state has much more than a ceremonial role. This story is not major headline news. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support - comprehensive article, the role is not entirely ceremonial, the margin of victory is exceptional, the result shows a rejection of racial politics, and we've really not have much in ITN recently, the other three items are from 23 August, 30 August, 31 August, that's nine to sixteen days old, we could really use a different news item.  starship .paint  (RUN) 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You're free to support for your other reasons but we still keep our significance standards even if our blurbs are old. It's a WP:SLOWCYCLE argument to say we should post something because we haven't posted in a while. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  14:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a personal essay you quoted, and no, it isn’t that “nothing’s happening”, nor is it “dogs biting men”, this is an election where millions voted. In any case, this reason about the context of the current news is only on top of the other arguments I raised.  starship .paint  (RUN) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I said that you were free to oppose for your other reasons. The main point of the essay is that the notability of things in ITN is independent of the news cycle. This can range from clear "man bites dog"-ish stuff to things that are very on the border of notability, like elections of mostly ceremonial positions. You say that it's just on top of the other arguments you cited which is in essence true, but you did still put a very strong emphasis on your WP:SLOWCYCLE argument (to the point of bolding the "nine to sixteen days old" part) so I wanted to address it. Your other arguments are sound reasoning for supporting posting this, even if I personally don't, I only wanted to address the WP:SLOWCYCLE argument. (Yes it is an essay, but I'm just citing it to explain my reasoning, not because I think other viewpoints are invalid or it makes me instantly win the argument). Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  16:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting support per above. Good article quality and the story is in the news. Case closed. (Although we really ought to reconsider WP:SLOWCYCLE, as why would we expect readers to use ITN if it's rarely updated?) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:SLOWCYCLE is an essay so people are free to ignore it or apply it however they want. It's imo more about individual situations where people argue "ITN is stale so we should post this", which is more of a symptom of how ITN currently works. If ITN wants to get rid of the WP:SLOWCYCLE, basically meaning posting more so that readers use ITN, then it’s significance standard and nomination system needs to be reformed, so that we post more and therefore eliminate WP:SLOWCYCLE naturally. If we just delete/depreciate WP:SLOWCYCLE or add it to WP:ITNATA, then what will really happen is that people will make WP:SLOWCYCLE arguments, but then the more conservative ITN participants will simply still oppose on significance, some of them will even still cite WP:SLOWCYCLE or use similar arguments to refute people using WP:SLOWCYCLE arguments if we just add it to WP:ITNATA, since some arguments there are still consistently used and, we will end up with discussions bloated with a bunch of WP:SLOWCYCLE arguments, but with no real change as more conservative participants still oppose and consensus won't really develop, which wouldn't really help in the end. The real problem, as always, is with ITNs significance standard and nomination system. Scientia potentia est, Monarch  OfTerror  17:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are we posting now? Don't we usually wait until they are seated, with small exceptions? QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As the poster mentioned, "there has been discussion whether the role is ceremonial or holds enough executive power for this to meet ITN's notability criteria, with those voters roughly evenly balanced." The resulting discussion was why it took this long for closure (and subsequent posting). JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm asking about the timing of the post (and whether we should post their election or their taking office), not whether the office is relevant. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We would have (normally) posted the election upon its conclusion, as the election itself is the subject. As such, the date and time when the elected person takes office has no bearing on when the article is posted. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hrngg, looking in the archive (eg. Turkish election earlier thisyear) seems we now post elections, not just when the winner takes office. I concede defeat here QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Post-posting Comment: I feel that much of this whole brouhaha could have been largely avoided (or at the very least minimised) if we had consensus over what constitutes a "powerless figurehead", seeing as the discussion here was what led to the guideline in question being added onto WP:ITNELECTIONS. That discussion, in which participants had agreed not to post elections of "powerless figureheads", neglected to draw a line between political office holders with no real power, and those with some degree of power - instead assuming that only the executive role will always wield all of the executive power. JaventheAldericky (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Joe Biggs sentencing

 * Oppose One more case in a very large one. Come on Knight, you know how this discussion is going to end. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite anywhere in ITN policy that your oppose is based on? — Knightof  theswords  16:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As long as it’s not ITNR, I’m giving my opinion. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No need to be patronising PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is neither the longest sentence nor most publicized case to come out of January 6th, and there’s still plenty more on trial that may get longer, but I’m not sure I’d support any of those either (except for Trump, should he be sentenced). Not close to ITN material. The   Kip  17:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Besides the reasoning above, I would equate this to similar opposes from the Lucy Letby case - this isn't going to have any significant consequences in justice within the US at this point. Obviously, the awaited breath are the cases against Trump that are far more significant. --M asem (t) 17:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So first of all, the blurb is a mess. Without even voting on this, he wasn't sentenced by a grand jury.  Grand juries don't sentence, they indict.  That's at the complete opposite end of the trial process.  It actually wasn't a jury of any kind that sentenced him.  It was Timothy J. Kelly that sentenced him.  See .-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per above.
 * In regards to January 6th court proceedings, I don't think they're notable enough for ITN unless some really high-profile individual (obvious example would be Trump) is sentenced PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this isn't groundbreaking. As PrecariousWorlds says - save it for someone prominent. Like Trump or Pence. Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In the US, grand juries indict, juries convict, and judges sentence. This whole blurb is wrong. -- Rockstone Send me a message!  19:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)