위키백과:뉴스/후보/2022년 1월

1월 31일

---

RD: 피에르 벨론

명명자의 의견:프랑스의 경영 임원오비투아리가 곧 영어 출처에 등장하기를 희망한다.기사는 약간의 일과 시간의 투자가 필요하다.케이틴(대화) 19시 55분, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 명목당 반대, 확대 필요… 폰킹3 (대화) 22:01, 2022년 2월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
• 이 200단어 스텁은 오늘 말 자격이 만료되기 전에 빠른 확장이 필요하다. --PFHLAI (대화) 07:01, 2022년 2월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅) RD: 지미 존슨 (블루스 기타리스트)

블룸6132 (대화) 00:40, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 짧지만 적절하고 확실하게 참조한다.문제없어. -동양어드(대화) 03:15, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 지원, 문제 없음, 준비 완료.플리비릿 (대화) 16:30, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD에 게시됨.스펜서^T•C 21:03, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(포스팅) RD: Mike Nykoluk

블룸6132 (대화) 21:11, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 솔리드 문서 및 참조 자료 지원.문제 없어. -Ad Orientem (대화) 21:21, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• Support Nice 기사, g2g. --TDKR Chicago 101 (토크) 03:37, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD에 게시됨.스펜서^T•C 20:40, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(폐쇄) 파티게이트

레너드 펜턴

도베르만 핀처 디어드레

지원 태그 모두 완료됨게시 준비 완료.Doberman PincherDeirdre (대화) 11:46, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지자 참조가 거기에 있는 것 같다.폰킹3 (대화) 16:04, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 주석: 1 CN 태그 해결스펜서^T•C 18:03, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

완료: 지금 Doberman PincherDeirdre (대화) 18:41, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• Stephen 22:41, 2022년 2월 1일(UTC) 게시[응답]

(게시) 2022년 포르투갈 총선

명명자의 의견:개표가 98% 진행된 가운데 PS가 가장 많은 의석을 차지할 것으로 확인되었고 PS가 그 결과를 축하했으며 [4] 스페인 총리[5]와 같은 몇몇 지도자들로부터 코스타가 축하를 받았으며 가장 중요한 것은 RS가 그것을 사회당의 승리로 선언하여 적절한 공천이 되었다는 것이다.[6], [7] 지금까지 그 기사는 유망하고 상태가 양호해 보였다.바스티안MAT (토크) 00:10, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 지사장 변경은 아니지만, 사실상의 ITN/R. 이 직위는 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC) 02:08, 1:08, 1:08 (토크)에 의해 만들어졌다[응답]
  • 참고하십시오. WP:ITN/R은 총선 결과를 포함한다.주프조프 (대화) 05:57, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 말 그대로 규칙이기 때문에 사실상의 ITN/R은 없다.GreatCaesarGhost 18:29, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 주 흐림을 업데이트하십시오.선거구 차원의 결과는 여전히 발표되고 있는 것으로 보인다.주프조프 (대화) 06:00, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 표는 결과로 업데이트해야 하며 반응 또는 후폭풍 섹션이 있어야 하며, 그렇지 않으면 ITNR. --Tone 08:39, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 결과가 추가되고 결과 여파에 대한 일부 텍스트가 추가될 때까지 품질에 반대한다.요셉2302 (대화) 08:57, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 준비 안 됐어.결과표에는 모든 정당이 0%로 나열되어 있고, 결과에 대한 산문이 없고, 예상치 못한 다수파에 대한 반응 등이 있다.게시되기 전에 작업이 필요함.수수한 천재 11시 59분, 2022년 1월 31일(UTC)[답글]
• 논평 나는 모든 당 대표의 반응을 후폭풍 부분에 추가했다.사회당이 다수당인 만큼 독일 선거처럼 연립 협상은 없을 테니 더 이상 사퇴가 없는 한 그게 전부다.알 수 없는 유혹 (대화) 15:55, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

  고맙네, 산문은 충분히 훌륭해, 바로 그거야하지만 그 테이블은 여전히 최종 퍼센트가 필요하다.수수한 천재 16장 55분, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 명명자 설명@톤:, @Joseph2302:, @Modest Genius:기사를 확대했는데, 누군가 전체 결과를 추가해 놓았으니, 지금 기사가 준비되어야 한다.바스티안MAT (대화) 18:36, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

  alt1 지원.내가 보기엔 좋아 보인다.수수한 천재 18:47, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원...Alt1 – 조항이 허용될 수 있을 것 같음(정확하다면)– Sca (대화) 19:43, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 포스팅, 수고하셨습니다! --톤 19:57, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 품질에 대한 반대/당김사실 정책/캠페인/분석에는 아무런 산문이 없다.투표 절차 및 투표 통계 단어 변경에 대한 정보만 제공(대화) 21:51, 2022년 1월 31일(UTC)[응답]
• 약한 지지 - 품질은 괜찮다고 생각한다.물론 선거운동에 대해서는 조금 더 있을 수 있지만, 기본이 있고 그 결과와 반응에 대한 산문 요약이 있는데, 이런 것들이 때로는 부족하다.— 아마쿠루 (대화) 22:20, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

1월 30일

---

(우편) RD: 제프리 A.허칭스

블룸6132 (대화) 17:35, 2022년 2월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• User:Stephen 그것이 게시되었다는 것을 여기에 써야 할 것 같다.Kirill C1 (대화) 14:19, 2022년 2월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
• Stephen 20:16, 2022년 2월 4일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

리오니드 쿠라블료프

노미네이터의 논평: 전설적인 소련과 러시아 배우.최고 흥행작의 주인공들.디포에는 푸시킨, 일프, 페트로프의 고전 작품 각색에 등장했다.그는 전부는 아니더라도 대부분의 유명한 소비에트 영화에 출연했던 것 같다.Kirill C1 (대화) 09:23, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:몇 개의 참조가 필요하며 일부 섹션 헤더도 이상적일 수 있다.스펜서^T•C 20장 43절, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 소스 추가.준비가 된 것 같아.Kirill C1 (대화) 17:48, 2022년 2월 3일 (UTC)[응답]
• Stephen 01:04, 2022년 2월 4일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

(포스팅됨) RD: 노마 와터슨

노미네이터의 말: "60년대 가족과 함께 현장에 불쑥 나타난 영국 민속음악의 위대한 인물 중 한 명" 마르티네반스123 (토크) 19:17, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 준비 안 돼 CN 태그 몇 개만 붙이면 돼. -Ad Orientem (대화) 21:20, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• Refs는 이제 그 두 사람을 위해 추가했다.마르티네반스123 (대화) 22:38, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 주요 이슈 없음. -Ad Orientem (대화) 23:18, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 사소한 문제라도 당신이 Talk에서 제기할 수 있는 문제가 있다면:노마 와터슨.고마워요.마르티네반스123 (대화) 23:27, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• Stephen 05:28, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

(포스팅됨) RD: S. K. 파라마시반

명명자의 의견:인도 전 하원의원기사는 홈페이지/RD 준비가 되기 전에 약간의 작업을 필요로 한다.편집 완료.기사는 합리적인 C급 전기다.케이틴 (대화) 03:17, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:나는 그 주제에 대해 그다지 잘 알지 못하지만, 그가 아빈 우유 협동조합과 함께 한 일이 제3록 사바의 일원으로서 한 일의 일부인가?그렇지 않다면 기사에는 그가 제3록 사바의 일원으로서 무엇을 했는지에 대한 더 많은 정보가 필요하다.스펜서^T•C 18:08, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  @스펜서:세번째 롯 사바에서의 그의 역할에 대한 더 많은 정보를 추가했다.한 번 보십시오.좋은 아이모가 될 거야.케이틴(대화) 19시 5분, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 우유 활동에 대한 견적이 필요한데, 그럼 가봐야죠.스티븐 22시 35분, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  고마워 @Stephen:완료. 재도입된 ref.케이틴(대화) 22:38, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• Stephen 05:27, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

2022년 오스트레일리아 오픈

명명자의 의견: ITNR.물건은 일이 필요하다._-_알소리아노97 (대화) 11:20, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 준비 안 됐어.실제 스포츠에 대한 산문은 없다. 단지 우승자들의 표일 뿐이다.기사는 테니스보다 조코비치의 예방접종 상태에 대해 이야기하는 데 더 많은 시간을 할애한다.남녀 싱글에 대한 개별 기사에도 산문이 없다.수수한 천재 12시 2분, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• Modest Genius에 따르면, 우리는 테니스 자체에 대한 실제 텍스트(예: 주요 경기 요약)가 필요하다.요셉2302 (대화) 12:12, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 상부에 반대하다.토너먼트 내에서 진행된 각 이벤트에 대해 산문 요약이 필요하다.— 아마쿠루 (대화) 14:34, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅) RD: 제프 이니스

블룸6132 (대화) 09:54, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지하다.소싱됨, 주제에 대한 예상 적용 범위 수준.~치어스, 텐톤파라솔 19:33, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 솔리드 문서 및 참조 자료 지원.문제 없어."Ready"로 표시. -Ad Orientem (대화) 21:17, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• Stephen 22:33, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

(우편) RD: 체슬리 크리스트

명명자의 의견:미스 USA 트릴펜디(토크) 23:18, 2022년 1월 30일(UTC)에서 우승한 유일한 흑인 여성 중 한 명[응답]

• 지지 - 출처가 분명해 보이고 가기에 좋다.BabbaQ (토크) 00:17, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD에 게시됨.스펜서^T•C 00:57, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

RD: 조 켄달

명명자의 의견:영국 코미디의 그 세대 몇 안 되는 여성들 중 한 명인 그녀의 "존 앤 메리" 스케치는 항상 나를 놀라게 했다.주류의 부고문은 아직 없는 것 같지만 나는 BBC가 곧 깨어날 것이라고 기대한다.Andrew🐉 (대화) 09:40, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 참조에 필요한 작업에 반대한다.폰킹3 (대화) 14:49, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 1993년 이후 그녀의 삶에 대한 어떤 것도 놓쳐서는 안 된다.– 무보슈구 (대화) 17:32, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

1월 29일

---

(포스팅됨) RD: 레스 샤피로

블룸6132 (대화) 02:47, 2022년 2월 3일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 비교적 짧지만 최소 기준을 충족한다.스펜서^T•C 03:51, 2022년 2월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• Stephen 05:17, 2022년 2월 3일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

(포스팅) RD: 라시드 바이람지

명명자의 의견:인도 말 조련사.기사는 홈페이지를 준비하기 전에 약간의 작업이 필요하다. 나는 그것을 할 것이다. 누군가 도움을 주고 싶다면, 오른쪽으로 뛰어라.편집 완료.기사는 합리적인 C급 전기다.홈페이지/RD에 대한 위생 기대치 충족케이틴 (대화) 20:43, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 논평: "Later, 그의 아버지인 Rustomji Byramji가 말들을 훈련시킬 것이다."라고 쓰여진 것 처럼 약간 어울리지 않는 것처럼 보인다; 일단 문장이 다시 쓰여 이것이 무엇을 의미하는지 명확히 하기 위해 쓰여진다면, 지지를 받을 것이다.스펜서^T•C 04:26, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  @스펜서:됐어. 편의상 한 번 봐줘.고마워요.케이틴 (대화) 05:35, 2022년 2월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• 게시. 스펜서가 지적한 문제 문장이 수정되었다.나머지 위키비오는 괜찮아 보인다. --PFHLAI (대화) 01:13, 2022년 2월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]

RD: 샘 레이

명명자의 의견:미국의 드러머.앨리어스폰더링스(??) (!!!) 02:09, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 통상적인 이유로는 준비가 안 됐다. -동양어드(대화) 21:14, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(포스팅됨) RD: 데이비드 그린(야구)

블룸6132 (토크) 17:54, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 1026단어의 읽기 쉬운 산문으로 충분히 길다.포맷은 괜찮아 보인다.산문에 각주가 충분히 있는 것 같다.이 위키비오는 RD를 위한 준비 완료. --PFHLAI (대화) 04:34, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 솔리드 문서 지원, 잘 참조, 문제 없음."Ready"로 표시. -Ad Orientem (대화) 21:13, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• Stephen 22:30, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

RD: 하워드 헤세만

명명자의 의견:신시내티 WKRP 출신 미국 배우, 반장 등라이언 리더 (대화) 23시 20분, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 준비되지 않은 참조는 매우 부실하며, 게시되기 전에 약간의 작업이 필요할 것이다.CN태그로 귀찮게 하지마.너무 많을 것이다. -Ad Orientem (대화) 01:14, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 코멘트는 내가 직접 이것을 지명하는 것을 심각하게 고려했었다.다행히 기사 자체에서 알 수 있듯이 그는 다작의 배우와 연기자였다.불행히도 소싱 부족이 문제다.나는 ITN에서 이 일을 여러 번 겪어 보았고, 그 일을 해냈다.그것은 ITN에서의 비뚤어진 결과 중 하나이다.위키피디아 메인 페이지 노출 없이 이 기사에 많은 히트가 있을 것으로 예상한다.어떤 경우든 훌륭한 근원은 바로 그 자체다.반스, 마이크는(1월 30일 2022년)."하워드 Hesseman, 박사 조니 열 'WKRP에 Cincinnati,의 사망에 81에서".할리우드 리포터.Retrieved 1월 30일 2022....“하워드 Hesseman는 엉뚱한 캐릭터를 묘사하는데 밖에 나온 경력을 쌓았다, 시트콤 WKRP에 Cincinn의 디스크 자키는 조니 열보다 유명해.”그 소스 적어도 몇가지 빠진 빈자리를 커버할 수 있다.나는 그것이 기사에서 업데이트되었다는 것을 놓쳤다.인용문은 내가 고치겠다.7&6=10대 (인터뷰) 20:55, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

RD: 랄프 멜란비

명명자의 의견:캐나다 하키나이트의 프로듀서(1966-85).주프조프 (대화) 00:17, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 적절한 기사, 다소 큰 이름.불가침헐크 (대화) 08:12, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 - 가기 좋아 보인다.BabbaQ (대화) 12:58, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시. --PFHLAI (대화) 13:35, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

(폐쇄)북미 눈보라 2022년 1월

(닫힘)톰 브래디 은퇴

(포스트)세르지오 마타렐라 이탈리아 대통령 재선

명명자의 의견:국가원수의 선출.또 이탈리아 대통령 재선도 이탈리아 정치에서 예외적인 사건으로 평가받고 있다.야크메(토크) 19:44, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대는 분부북충(대화) 20:58, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]의식 후기다.
  • 유럽의 군주 알 수 없는 유혹(대화) 21:58, 2022년 1월 29일(UTC)도 그렇다[응답하라]
• 모든 신문과 웹사이트의 1면에 보도되는 국제 관련 지원 뉴스.--Holapaco77 (대화) 21:21, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 선거 결과가 ITN에 자주 게시되는 등 지지도가 높았다.야크메의 지적대로 마타렐라가 재선에 성공했는데, 그 전에 조르지오 나폴리타노만이 그 위업을 달성했기 때문에 상당히 예외적인 사건이다.또한, 이탈리아는 유럽의 주요 강국이지만, 현재 정치적 위기에 처해 있기 때문에, 이것은 국가적, 국제적 관련성이 있다.따라서 대통령은 비록 주로 의례적인 역할이지만 정치적으로 분단된 국가/사회에서 통합의 중재자 역할을 하는 데 많은 영향력을 가지고 있다. - CDE34RFV (대화) 21:35, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  아, 흥미롭군.컨텍스트를 추가해줘서 고마워. --47.155.96.47 (대화) 23:18, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• CDE34RFV당 지원.이탈리아에서는 재선이 드문데, 통상 7년 임기는 가장 경험이 많은 판사와 정치인에게 평생 공로상이다.몇 시간 전까지만 해도 마타렐라가 자신을 세고 있었기 때문에 더욱 이례적이다.알 수 없는 유혹 (대화) 21:58, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 댓글을 달다.이에 반대하는 것이 아니라 이탈리아 대통령이 국민투표에 의해 선출되는 것이 아니라 의회와 지역 관계자들의 모임에서 선출되기 때문에 나에게는 덜 의미 있어 보인다. 331닷 (대화) 22:00, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  미국 대통령에게도 비슷한 점이 있는데, 이는 배심원제로 꽉 막힌 정치 시스템 때문이다.("POTUS는 국민투표에 의해 선택되지 않는다"는 말은 엄밀히 말하면 사실이다.)물론 POTUS는 국가 원수 겸 정부 수반이다. --47.155.96.47 (대화) 23:18, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

  요점은, 비록 미국 대통령이 그러한 목적을 위해 특별히 선택된 사람들에 의해 선택되고 특정 후보를 선택하기 위해 대중 투표에 의해 구속되지만; 미국 대통령은 의회와 주지사에 의해 선택되지 않는다. 331 도트 (대화) 07:47, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지하다.국가원수를 선출하는 국가는 이를 위해 충분히 주목할 만하다.대통령은 이탈리아 군대에 대한 실질적인 권력을 가지고 있고 순수하게 의례적인 것은 아니다.— Mhawk10 (대화) 22:58, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• '예외'라면 좋은 것 같다. --47.155.96.47 (대화) 23:18, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 많은 RS 보도에서 언급했듯이, 이탈리아 대통령은 단지 실제적인 의례적인 것 이상이며, 특히 이탈리아 정치의 현 상태에서는 더욱 그러하다.마법사유해(토크) 03:11, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 민심이 아닌 국회 대의원에 의해 선출된 힘없는 수장에 반대하라.전혀 무관하다.이탈리아의 수상이 실질적인 권한을 휘두른다."국가 수반"을 선출하는 나라는 그 호칭이 존댓말이고 나는 그 주장이 어떻게 계속 표면화되는지를 이해할 수 없다.WP:ITNC가 단순 !투표수가 아니라면, 게시할 이유가 없다. --LaserLegs (토크) 03:13, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 포스팅.상술한 바와 같이, 이 경우, 대통령은 순수하게 의례적인 것이 아니고, 기사는 광범하다. --tone 07:28, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대한다. 역할은 비록 약간의 잔재력을 가지고 있다 하더라도 대부분 의례적인 것이다.ITN/R의 문턱에 도달하지 못하고, 다른 경우 국가당 2개의 게시물에 대한 수문을 열 수도 있는데, 이는 과도할 것이다.— 아마쿠루 (대화) 07:39, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

부연으로, 지명은 ITNR로 취급되지 않고, 게시할 수 있는 충분한 지지를 얻은 정기 지명으로 취급되고 있다. --Tone 10:13, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

반대하라. 그러나 그것은 어떤 합리적인 조치에 의해서도 충분한 지지를 받지 못했다. 특히 이미 확립된 전례와 모순되게 그렇게 빨리 게시하는 것은 더욱 그렇다.GreatCaesarGhost 16:06, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

게시되었을 때 11시간 44분 후에 5개의 '지지 대 2 반대'(초대 1 이상)가 있었다는 것만 빼면, 내게는 꽤 타당해 보인다.그러나 나는 그것이 기본적으로 의례적인 자리로 간주되어야 한다는 것에 강력히 동의한다.대부분의 의례적인 국가 원수들은 명목상으로는 군부의 수장이며, 숙청된 의회에서 어떤 역할을 하고 있기 때문에, 이 자리를 비식민적인 것으로 취급하는 것은, 논쟁의 여지가 없이 포스터에 의해 불필요하게 언급된 것처럼, 이 분야에서 최근에 확립된 ITNR에 대한 새로운 합의(현재 내가 하고 있는 합의)를 훼손할 우려가 있다.비록 내가 그것과 거의 관련이 없었지만, 아마도 예기치 않게 그리고 논쟁의 여지없이 후회할 정도로 훌륭한 ITNR 명목과 함께 성공하는 것을 제외하고는, 옹ly는 동의한다. 이 명목들은 논쟁의 여지없이 품질적인 이유로 실패했어야 했고 아마도 ITNR 변화를 가져오는데 도움을 줄 수 있는 충분한 사람들을 짜증나게 했을 것이다.)물론 의례적인 것이 충분한 지지를 받는다면 게시물이 게시되는 것을 막을 필요는 없지만, 그것이 얼마나 의례적인지 여부는 틀림없이 지지자들과 반대자들만을 위한 질문이 될 것이고, 적어도 미래에, 게시 관리자가 게시하는 이유로 인용되어서는 안 된다.Tlhslobus (대화) 16:48, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 보통 (품질 등에 따라) 국가원수와 정부원수가 따로 있는 '중요' 국가(가칭 인구 5000만명 이상으로 정의)를 위해 2개의 게시물을 올려야 한다고 개인적으로 생각하기 때문이다.나는 예를 들어, 우리가 인도의 대통령, 영국의 여왕, 일본의 천황에 변화를 주어서는 안 된다는 생각에 강하게 반대한다. 왜냐하면 어떤 사람들은 작은 나라들(나 아일랜드 포함)에도 두 개의 게시물을 허용할까 두려워하기 때문이다.만약 우리가 이탈리아 의례적인 국가원수를 올리지 않는다면, 그것은 많은 반영국의 편집자들이 그것을 영국의 새로운 군주를 막으려는 정당화(특히 여왕이 임기 중에 죽는 것보다 그녀의 마음을 바꾸고 은퇴를 결심하는 경우)로 사용할 위험을 감수하게 될 것이고, 이것은 어떤 바람직하지 않은 편집자와 독자를 낳게 될 것이다.보유 문제 등인도 대통령 등에 변화를 주지 못하면 비슷한 편집자·독자 보유 문제가 발생할 수 있다...물론 만약 우리가 너무 많은 게시물로 끝나게 된다면, 이러한 게시물이 (공정하게) 새로운 ITNR 기준으로 인해 우리에게 강요되지 않는 한, 이것은 자가 수정되는 경향이 있을 것이다.Tlhslobus (대화) 17:40, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 뉴 노멀?이것이 이제 우리를 대부분의 나라의 대통령과 수상들을 포스팅하는 것에 개방할 수 있을까?예: 인도나는 그것에 대해 괜찮지만, 만약 그것이 기대라면 우리는 그것을 성문화해야 한다.고마워요.케이틴(대화) 18:48, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

  그것은 내게는 거의 말이 되지 않는다. 그리고 나는 우리가 과거에 게시한 것과 그렇지 않은 것을 볼 때 왜 이 글이 게시되었는지 잘 모르겠다.우리는 적어도 WP에 누가 나타나서 일어나는가에 의존하기 보다는 이것에 대한 일종의 규약을 가져야 한다.ILICEIT 또는 WP:밤중에 IDONT like it on the night...— 아마쿠루 (대화) 21:42, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

  우리가 현 정부 수장의 리스트에 대해 녹색 그늘진 감방에 설정한 이유는 ITN/R에 관한 끝없는 오락가락을 끝내기 위해서였다.그것은 누군가가 일반 투표에서처럼 외부에서 임명된 힘없는 인물을 지명하는 것을 막지는 못한다.연습 WT를 코드화하려는 경우:ITN이 그 일을 하는 곳이다.IMO는 이러한 종류의 이야기가 주목할 만한 경우가 있을 수 있지만, 이것은 그 중 하나가 아니었다. --LaserLegs (토크) 22:19, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

  @LaserLegs와 아마쿠루: 둘 다 동의한다.아무튼 앞으로, 위로!케이틴(대화) 22시 52분, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 실제로 어떤 성문화든 영국 군주를 포함해야 할 것이고, 그렇게 하는 가장 덜 해로운/'최소한 인종차별주의' 방법은 '인구 5천만 이상의 나라'라고 말하는 것 같다.아니면 덜 받아들일 수 없는 기준을 가진 사람이 있는가?Tlhslobus (대화) 12:02, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

1월 28일

---

(우편) RD: 해롤드 R.스틸

블룸6132 (대화) 17:52, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 충분히 길고(읽을 수 있는 500개 이상의 단어) 각주가 예상된 지점에 배치되어 있으며, 형식은 괜찮아 보인다.이 위키비오는 RD를 위해 준비되었다. --PFHLAI (대화) 19:15, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• Stephen 22:21, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

RD: 디에고 베르다거

노미네이터의 논평: 멕시코-아르헨티나 가수, 여러 라틴 그래미 후보; BBC에 따르면 2000만 장 이상의 음반이 팔렸다.기사는 많은 관심을 필요로 한다. --2806:109F:1:16E1:CC73:D5BD:447B:57C5 (대화) 21:54, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대 – 98단어 스텁과 참조되지 않은 음반 목록.– Sca (대화) 23:22, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 – Per Sca - FlightTime (오픈 채널) 08:44, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 준비되지 않음 776자의 읽기 쉬운 산문을 가진 단조로운 글.음반 목록 섹션은 여전히 참조되지 않았다.REF를 확장하여 추가하십시오. --PFHLAI(토크) 00:09, 2022년 2월 3일(UTC)[응답]

1월 27일

---

(포스팅됨) RD: 진 클라인즈

– 무보슈구 (대화) 18:53, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 범위 깊이에 대한 최소 기준을 충족한다. 완전히 참조한다.스펜서^T•C 05:31, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 게시. --PFHLAI (대화) 07:25, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

(우편) RD: 게오르크 크리스토프 빌러

노미네이터의 논평:독일 합창 지휘자 토마스칸토르.그라메스2 (대화) 11시 9분 (화) 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 2010년 바흐에 이어 그 자리에 16번째 인물을 위한 기사를 만들었다.일부 ref들은 실종되거나 죽거나 신뢰할 수 없었지만 Grimes2는 내용을 추가하는 등 훌륭한 일을 해냈다.최근 18대 후계자를 위한 기사를 추가했다. --게르다 아렌트 (대화) 07:31, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 약간 짧지만 충분히 길다(>400단어) 형식은 괜찮아 보이고 산문 전체에는 충분한 각주가 있는데, 이 위키비오는 RD를 위해 준비되었다.AGF는 영어 이외의 모든 출처를 제공했다. --PFHLAI (대화) 07:43, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 준비, 하지만 게르다 아렌트 나는 한 가지 질문이 있었다: 정확히 어떻게 그가 " 기숙학교의 새 건물에 기구가 있었다"는 것인가? (인트로가 "건축"이라고 말한다.그게 무슨 뜻인지 확실하지 않아.스펜서^T•C 17:47, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  내가 알아서 할게. - 건물이 훨씬 더 많아 - 한 소식통은 "비전"이라고 말한다.내가 뭘 할 수 있을지 두고 보자. --게르다 아렌트 (대화) 20:21, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 게시하다.El_C 20:13, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

(우편) RD: 요한 훌틴

명명자의 의견:스웨덴계 미국인 병리학자알래스카 영구 동토층 무덤에서 1918년 인플루엔자 바이러스의 흔적을 담은 조직을 발견했다.레즐리 (대화) 07:10, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 기사는 내게 준비가 되어 있는 것 같고, 그가 주목했던 것을 적절히 커버하는 것 같다.스펜서^T•C 04:53, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 게시. --PFHLAI (대화) 14:06, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅) RD: 샤란지트 싱

명명자의 의견:인도 하키 주장.기사는 현재 미완성 기사여서 확장될 필요가 있다.편집 완료.기사는 합리적인 C급 전기로서 홈페이지/RD로 가기 좋다.케이틴 (대화) 05:57, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 기사는 현재 2974자로 참조가 좋아 보인다.주프조프 (대화) 04:51, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시. --PFHLAI (대화) 06:02, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅됨) RD: 배리 크라이어

명명자의 의견:수십 년간의 경력과 다양한 코미디 스타일에 걸친 코미디 연기자 및 작가.그 기사는 약간의 업데이트가 필요하다. 내용이 약간 부족하고 참조가 많이 부족하다.2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (대화) 10:56, 2022년 1월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지도는 기사에 약간의 작업이 필요하지만, 특히 그의 후기 작업이 필요하다는 것에 유목민의 의견에 동의한다. 조나스(토크) 21:42, 2022년 1월 27일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원부에서 더 많은 소스를 추가했다.코미디 천재.하지만 날 믿지 마마르티네반스123 (대화) 11시 20분 (UTC) (응답)
• 여기 드라이어 영국식 노하우와 더 영리한 내 코미디 동료가 있다는 것을 순전히 선의로 지지하라.불가침헐크 (대화) 11시 31분, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

아니면 네 형편없는 영국인 등을 말하는 거니?– Sca (대화) 13:10, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[답글]

"엘프스 타 유마는 네 감성을 지켜, 멍청아."마르티네반스123 (대화) 12:26, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[답글]

• 게시 --PFHLAI (대화) 2022년 1월 29일 19:24 (UTC)[응답]

1월 26일

---

RD: 자넷 미드

명명자의 의견:오스트레일리아 가톨릭 수녀 & 팝 록 가수. 700단어 이상의 읽기 쉬운 산문.RD 준비 거의 다 된 각주를 여기저기서 더 쓸 수 있다. --PFHLAI (대화) 21:35, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅됨) RD: David Bannett

명명자의 의견:샤브밭 엘리베이터의 발명가, 100세의 나이로 세상을 떠났다.각주/문단 2개 이상과 함께 읽을 수 있는 800개 이상의 산문.적절한 어휘가 사용되고 있는지 모르겠지만 샤브바트와 공학에 정통한 누군가가 이 위키비오의 내용을 검토한다면 좋을 것이다.고마워. --PFHLAI (대화) 16:26, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

PFHLAI, 나는 엔지니어는 아니지만 유대인이며 샤브밭 엘리베이터가 있는 유대교 회당에 참석했다.우리는 샤브밭에 '스파크 만들기'를 할 수 없는데, 이는 전자제품 사용 금지로 해석되기 때문에 엘리베이터는 우리가 조각해 놓은 많은 허점 중 하나인 한 층씩 가도록 미리 프로그램되어 있다.나도 몰랐던 다른 허점들을 고친 것 같아.유대어 용어는 나에게 합리적이다.특별한 질문 있으십니까?– 무보슈구 (대화) 17:19, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 무보슈구.나는 특별한 질문이 없다.ITN에 연결되기 전에 처리해야 할 종교/문화적으로 부적절한 자료가 있을 수 있다는 점을 우려했다.나는 모든 것이 "감각적"이라는 것에 기쁘다.다시 한번 고마워. --PFHLAI (대화) 17:41, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

지원이 기준에 부합하는 것 같다.바넷이 발명한 샤브밭 엘리베이터는 병원 등에 특별한 중요성을 지닌 유대계에선 정말 '무엇'이다.--게위즈(토크) 16:28, 2022년 1월 31일(UTC)[응답]

• RD에 게시됨.스펜서^T•C 05:11, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

RD: 예레미야 스탬러

명명자의 의견:미국의 심장전문의.물품은 일을 요한다.그리 멀지 않다.케이틴 (대화) 05:53, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

트로피컬 스톰 애나

유목민의 논평: 열대성 폭풍으로 인한 많은 사망자들.2022년 타임라인과 웨더 오브 2022에서 언급되었다.쉽게 ITN의 가치를 인정한다.일라이자안드스킵 (대화) 00:29 (UTC) 2022년 1월 28일 (화)[응답

• 품질에 대한 반대(공인성 tho에 대한 지원) – 현재 리드 섹션과 임팩트 섹션의 두 문장에 대해 최소한 어느 정도 확장이 필요하다.메트 히스토리도 불완전하다.~ 사이클론비스키트 (챗) 00:51, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 많은 사망자수에 대한 지원, 품질에 대한 반대 그 기사는 싸이클론비스크릿에 따라 확장될 필요가 있다.허리케인 에드가 05:12, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 니즈가 확장됨에 따라 품질에 반대한다.확장된 경우 이를 ITN에 충분히 중요한 지원으로 간주하십시오.요셉2302 (대화) 10:21, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 주석 – 얇고, 강조 표시됨– Sca (대화) 13:47, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 다른 사람들처럼, 그 영향에 대한 문장은 오직 하나뿐이다.폭풍이 미치는 영향에 대한 보다 완벽한 그림을 제공한다면 이를 뒷받침할 것이다. --Jayron32 18:25, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 공신력 지지, 품질 반대.싸이클론바이스키트(Cyclonbiskit.냐나르산 (대화) 20:32, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

1월 25일

---

(우편) RD: 하인츠 베르너 짐머만

노미네이터의 논평: 재즈의 영향을 받은 독일 교회 음악가 겸 교수, 그리고 그의 핵심 작품이 미니애폴리스에서 초연되었다.이 기사는 2006년 제롬 콜에 의해 시작되었는데, 그는 그의 기억도 오래도록 간직하고 있다.미안해, 휴가 중이었는데 1월 27일에 인쇄된 FAZ에 있는 공지를 놓쳤어.그에게 너무 늦지 않기를 바래. - 빌러가 열렸네. 1월 27일, JS 바흐의 후계자. - 왜?뭔가 빠진 게 있으면 말해.게르다 아렌트 (대화) 16:02, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

• 2500자(385단어)의 읽기 쉬운 산문으로, 조금 짧지만, 그래도 자격을 갖추기에 충분할 정도로 길다.포맷은 괜찮아 보인다.모든 비영어의 출처를 AGF에 알려야 하지만 각주가 충분한 것 같다.이 위키비오는 RD를 위한 준비 완료. --PFHLAI (대화) 04:16, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 설명:CN 태그가 있는 비소싱 문장 하나.스펜서^T•C 05:03, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

  미안해, 내 잘못이야. 사진을 넣기 위해 파라오를 쪼개서 일어난 일이야.나는 지금 다음의 ref (Grove)를 복사하여 구독하지 않고 온라인에 있는 다른 것을 추가했다.스펜서, 빌러에게 부족한 게 뭐야?--게르다 아렌트 (대화) 08:10, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

  그걸 검토할 기회가 없었지스펜서^T•C 17장 44절, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 지원 소싱된 시작 문서.그라메스2 (대화) 09:18, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• RD에 게시됨.스펜서^T•C 17장 44절, 2022년 2월 1일 (UTC)[응답하라]

(우편) RD: 장 클로드 코르베일

블룸6132 (대화) 14:04, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 충분히 길면(400개 이상의 단어) 포맷이 괜찮아 보이고, 산문 전체에는 충분한 각주가 있는데, 이 위키비오는 RD를 위한 준비가 되어 있다.AGF는 비영어권 소식통을 인용했다. --PFHLAI (대화) 15:25, 2022년 1월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 서포트는 괜찮아 보인다.폰킹3 (대화) 00:08, 2022년 1월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 게시. --PFHLAI (대화) 06:00, 2022년 1월 31일 (UTC)[응답]

피터 로빈스

명명자의 의견:초기 피너츠 TV 스페셜과 첫 영화에 출연한 찰리 브라운의 성우.어제 죽음이 발표되었다.기사는 포괄적이고 잘 인용되어 있다.–FlyingAce^✈hello 17:26, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지가 잘 공급된 것 같고 언론의 많은 관심을 받고 있다.Jtnav04 (대화) 19:47, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원이 잘 제공됨.최근 한 편집자는 로빈스가 결혼하거나 아이를 낳지 않았다는 내용의 성명을 마지막에 추가했다.이것은 RD에 게시하기 전에 소싱되거나 제거되어야 할 수도 있지만, 일단 처리된 후에는 가는 것이 좋을 것 같다.게리콜레만팬(대화) 03:49, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 필모그래피와 상은 어떠한 참고 자료도 부족하다.스티븐 04:21, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 두 개의 전체 섹션은 불충분한 참고자료로 태그가 붙는다.이 글을 메인페이지에 올리는 것을 지원하려면 그 부분을 고쳐야 한다. --Jayron32 18:26, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

RD: 밀레나 살비니

명명자의 의견:인도 네 번째로 높은 민간인상 수상자 마법사의 파드마 슈라이 파라오 (토크) 16:13, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 코멘트 – 220단어의 텍스트로 약간 얇다.– Sca (대화) 17:21, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 그녀의 전기 수십 년 전부가 본문에는 빠져 있다.우리는 1962년, 1975년, 1980년, 1999년, 2001년에 약 1문장의 정보를 가지고 있다.위키피디아 기사로 충분히 주목받는 사람치고는 미완성인 것이다.누군가가 이 내용을 메인 페이지 작성에 앞서 확실한 참고자료로 확대해야 한다. --Jayron32 18:28, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

(우편) RD: 오찌

노미네이터의 논평: 1988년부터 죽을 때까지 애틀랜타 동물원에 살았던 아프리카 태생의 서부 저지대 고릴라.TJMSmith (대화) 14:49, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 댓글 – "세계에서 가장 오래 사는 수컷 고릴라"가 아닐까?– 17:26, 2022년 1월 26일(UTC)

나는 그것이 사실이라고 생각한다.나는 정보원이 그것을 어떻게 진술했는지를 고수했다.TJMSmith (대화) 18:18, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]

• 올드 고릴라 지원...내 말은, 참조하는 것은 좋아 보인다는 거야.게리콜레만팬(대화) 18:44, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• 오, 맙소사, 거기서 잠깐 다른 한 사람을 걱정하게 만들었구나.어쨌든, 지원; 좋은 참고자료와 좋은 기사.페이크시엔티스트8000 (대화) 23:46, 2022년 1월 26일 (UTC)[응답]
• Stephen 03:03, 2022년 1월 27일 (UTC) 게시[응답]

• 스티븐이나 다른 관리자: 우리가 오지에서 오지로 링크를 바꿀 수 있을까?지금은 WP:이스트레그(Easteregg), 그리고 사람들이 오지를 볼 때, 그들은 오지 오스본(스펠링이 다르더라도)을 훨씬 더 상정할 가능성이 있다.요셉2302 (대화) 09:33, 2022년 1월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

• 하지만 우린 오지를 혼자 두지 않을거야?스티븐 10시 43분, 2022년 1월 27일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 그래, 오지 오스본은 그를 차별화시킬 성을 가지고 있어.이 사람은 단명인 오찌다.그가 사람이 아니라고 해서 그를 괴짜 취급하지 마라, 나는 충고한다.불가침헐크 (대화) 10:48, 2022년 1월 27일 (UTC)[응답]

실제로, 우리는 RD 디스플레이에 거의 한 번도 해 본 적이 없다. 비록 때때로 비주요 주제에 대해 그렇게 하는 것에 대한 소문은 있지만 말이다.—바굼바 (대화) 07:30, 2022년 1월 28일 (UTC)[응답]

(포스팅) RD: 에르윈 아이슈

Nominator's comments: artist in glass from Bavaria who used the material as a means of expression, internationally known - the article was written long ago by a user who left in 2011, many offline sources, the latest refs support the content but many details need to be be believed Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've added some ISBN and OCLC. Article ok. Grimes2 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Wim Jansen

Nominator's comments: Member of the great Dutch football team of the 1970s, later won the Scottish league in his one season as manager of Celtic. I've painstakingly sourced this through English, Dutch and French sources. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:2870:1B66:F076:7A1C (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is the table of Club statistics complete? Looks a bit too empty. There should be some figures on each row in the totals column, no? --PFHLai (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifying that it is the total is hard to do as there seems to be little in recording appearances in the KNVB Cup. This website [19] shades its cells in red where the data is incomplete, which is every season except his very last one. Even this Dutch website doesn't track KNVB Cup stats on Jansen at all [20] I don't know if this is a blow against posting the recent death. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:AC0D:AEB:53CB:48D1 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I see that new numbers have been added to the table. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Protests over responses to the COVID-19 pandemic

January 24

---

(Posted) RD: John Arrillaga

Nominator's comments: American developer. Article needs to be updated. Edits done. Article is a good C-class biography for the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Marc Andreessen's father-in-law. Source has been added for death, but the section on his career needs expansion. Joofjoof (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not a stub, but "Career" is too sparse.—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments @Joofjoof and Bagumba: - have made a few edits. Please have a look at your convenience. I believe it meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (>600 words), with enough footnotes in expected spots, and formatting looks fine, this wikibio is READY for RD to me. Does Joofjoof or Bagumba want another look? The career section has been slightly expanded in recent edits. --PFHLai (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The career coverage is better now. Joofjoof (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Looks good to go now.BabbaQ (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sufficient now.—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Heidelberg University shooting

(Closed) James Webb Telescope

(Posted) RD: Sheldon Silver

Nominator's comments: American politician, speaker of the New York state assembly (1994–2015), dies in prison at age 77. Article looks solid. Davey2116 (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This reads like an attack page. Someone knowledgeable needs to check the solidity of the sourcing and the appropriate balance. Espresso Addict(talk) 23:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it is NYS politics... it's messy as hell in Albany. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've looked at the article and I believe it's ready. The article is well sourced and I do think it is balanced given the criminal biography aspect. He did die in prison, after all (well, seems he was transferred to a hospital, but he was still an inmate). I don't have POV concerns, and I am a native of New York who followed Silver's speakership and criminal proceedings somewhat. That said, another lead paragraph that doesn't mention his crimes could help. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Muboshgu. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ayberk Pekcan

Ainty Painty (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On a very quick look, badly needs some copy edits as well as sourcing for the entire filmography. I suspect when the puffery/repetition is removed it will appear very stubby. I would also strongly prefer that it did not link to the Turkish 'pedia without using the interlanguage link formatting which indicates which language the target is in. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. The {{Interlanguage link}} template has been deployed, but the Filmography section has remained unreferenced. There is only one {{cn}} tag, but the prose (338 words) has not changed much during the past week. More work is needed, but eligibility is running out soon.--PFHLai (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Burkinabé coup d'état

Nominator's comments: A very major event, all RS reporting this, article needs updating and expanding before it is posted. Events might change in the coming hours, so the blurb may be updated accordingly. Honestly concerning like all previous coup d'etats. Update - Kabore deposed, government, parliament and constituion dissolved. [21] An ITNR tag has been added, as there is a ”Change in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” BastianMAT (talk) 10:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Major event. But article really needs an update. (PenangLion (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose Seems like a chaotic situation and the article is similar, e.g. "The mutinying mutinying soldiers". And coups in Africa seem commonplace. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the article needs a lot of work. However the news itself is more than noteworthy, and if the coup succeds, it will fall under ITNR. ”Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” The article is not ready, we don’t know the clear outcome of the coup yet, however the situation and a government change should be more than noteworthy. We will have to wait and see what happens, and in the meantime improve the article. BastianMAT (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Look at 2015 Burkinabé coup d'état. In that case, the coup didn't stick and the president was reinstated a week later. We're an encyclopedia, not a breaking news service, and will look bad if we post flip-flops. We should allow plenty of time to let the dust settle. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on significance, Oppose on quality. At the moment the article contains several sentences that don't make sense (e.g. "Although the government denied the ongoing coup in the country."), Unencyclopedic writing, what appears to be several unsourced statements (e.g. The Military are scheduled to make an announcement) and a couple of sections which are either blank or contain a single sentence. With a bit of expansion and copyediting this would be a good thing to post though. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France24 (most reliable western msm for Africa) says the prez is being held by the mil https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220124-burkina-faso-president-kabore-held-by-mutinying-soldiers-sources-tell-france-24?ref=tw_i

• That's a live feed and what it actually says currently is "Uncertainty in Burkina Faso over fate of President Kaboré". Andrew🐉(talk) 13:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - In terms of notability, it's clearly a major geopolitical event. The quality of the article is currently lacking but most major media sources are covering it now (as of 8:00 AM EST), so it should improve rapidly over the next day or two. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality as article needs expansion, and also source checking (the Sputnik Mundo source looks like it's depreciated according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#RfC:_Sputnik). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Kaboré held, etc. AP, BBC, France24 – Sca (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability. Not ready yet on quality. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Pikamander2 noted, the article has plenty of potential for improvement. I'll see what I might be able to contribute. Ludicrous (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it's important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there are two orange tags at the moment, which are usually blockers to posting. — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - Kabore deposed, government, parliament and constituion dissolved. [22] An ITNR tag has been added, as there is a ”Change in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government.” BastianMAT (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance, as it made NYT push alert. Haven't investigated quality. {{u Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when article is deemed suitable, per above. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once article is ready to go. Coups are big news. The Kip (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two orange tags to expand, one in background and one in the coup section. Please fix this before we can post. --Tone 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: Fixed it, article seems to be pretty good now, should be ready for a front page.

• • Posting. --Tone 09:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright nice, @Tone: can you add the nom to my profile? Thinking of adding a display on my profile of all articles I have contributed and nominated to pretty soon. Cheers and have a great day mate! BastianMAT (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Presenting this as a done deal seems quite improper. Look at what happened last time – ITN rushed to post after just one day but then, a week later, the President was reinstated. The blurb says that the President has been "deposed" but the rebels themselves say that he has been "suspended". The reality seems to be that he's being held prisoner but now the challenge for the rebels is whether they can convince everyone that they are in charge. And can they then establish a functioning administration. A lot will depend on how foreign governments react, especially France.

Remember the march on the Capitol, when the result of the US election was being challenged? In such circumstances, it's a power struggle and the rebels don't always win. We should not rush to declare a winner in such confused and chaotic circumstances.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about convincing "everyone that they are in charge". The classic goal of every coup seems to have been achieved - the president is no longer in power. So, as an accomplished coup, this has been duly posted. If things change, the blurb could be bumped higher to reflect those changes. Brandmeister^talk 14:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why Burkina Faso isn't a wikilink in the posted blurb? As someone unfamiliar with the country I would have appreciated one, as I wasn't initially sure whether it was a country, a province or other territory. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a long-standing convention that nation states are not Wikilinked in ITN as part of the MOS:OVERLINK principle - the idea being that most people have heard of most countries. I guess Burkina Faso is probably close to the bottom of the recognizability stakes for most people, but we apply a level playing field for all. (I went there on holiday once, so I do know a bit more about it myself!) — Amakuru (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 5G

Battle of al-Hasakah (2022)

Ainty Painty (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Almost all the cites in the article are to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. As far as I've seen, this event has been absent from main RS news sights. More sources would be necessary before posting. – Sca (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It includes refs from several other sources, including The Daily Telegraph & The Washington Post. Jim Michael (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that our article on Middle East Eye states, "the governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain accuse MEE of pro-Muslim Brotherhood bias." – ?? — Sca (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose ongoing Would make sense to post this as an item first since it is based around a singular event. Spencer^T•C 00:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - added blurb suggestion per Spencer. - Indefensible (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - agreed statement per User:Spencer (PenangLion (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose - For something as contentious as a war and alleged human rights abuses, a wide range of sources would be required, but there is a strong dominance to SOHR. The WP article on SOHR says is a one-man-band and supposedly biased. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality for the sourcing issues raised by Bumbubookworm. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

---

(Posted) RD: Edgar S. Cahn

Bloom6132 (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some items are mentioned in the lede but not the body, such as Timebanking and his academic positions other than Antioch. Joofjoof (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joofjoof: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Lead mentions that he created TimeBanking and was "CEO of TimeBanks USA" but the body has no additional information about that. Another 2-4 sentences would be helpful (what does TimeBanks USA do?), and once resolved, would be willing to support. Spencer^T•C 05:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spencer: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Spencer^T•C 17:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Beegie Adair

Bloom6132 (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article text is short (2821 characters), but both text and discography are fully sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: R. Nagaswamy

Nominator's comments: Indian archaeologist. Padma Bhushan awardee. Article requires some work to get to homepage levels of hygiene. Edits done. Article meets hygiene levels for homepage / RD. A good C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (500+ words), formatting looks fine, and there are enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. One minor thing to sort out: as he was the first director of the Tamil Nadu Archaeology Department, how come there is a predecessor listed in the infobox? Who was first? --PFHLai (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @PFHLai:. This one was gnawing me as well, but I had held off on updating it. I have requested one other editor user:Pachu Kannan to help untie this one. But, in the meantime, I have removed the 'first' reference. It does seem like TNR was the director from 1964 to 1966. With that this one is good to go. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for looking into this, Ktin. I am not sure, but it seems to me that TNR was indeed the predecessor except that he had a different title. The table at the bottom of this webpage indicated that RN took over from TNR as "Special Officer" in charge of the operations in 1966, and his title was changed to 'Director' near the end of that year. So I am under the impression that "first Director" or "inaugural Director" would indeed be appropriate for RN, but not "founding Director". More sourcing would be helpful here. IMO, this is a small thing and should not stall this RD nom. There is no doubt that he led the operations for many years. However, the articles on Tamil Nadu Archaeology Department and T. N. Ramachandran may need some tweaking to keep things consistent in the wiki. --PFHLai (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. You were right. Added a footnote for TNR (who was really a special officer). Source is here.^[1]

• Posted. Already posted on MainPage ~10 hours ago. --PFHLai (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Thierry Mugler

Nominator's comments: French fashion designer Stephen 00:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You’re missing a source, I took the liberty to add one. Trillfendi (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Significant death, article is well cited. Morgan695 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose multiple citation needed tags, and multiple other sentences also need sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Now down to 2 {cn} tags, but the prose looks too much like WP:PROSELINE. --PFHLai (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Mézières

Nominator's comments: Seminal French BD author (Valérian et Laureline). Sandstein 19:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Tagged as "Good Article", so whatever needs to be done should be minimal. Fram (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Four Cn's outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed three of the four CN-tagged bits, and sourced one. Should be good to go now! Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GA and no outstanding citation needed tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Armenian President Armen Sarkissian

Nominator's comments: Resignation of a head of state. Mooonswimmer 17:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that in Armenia the PM is more powerful than the president(and the president cited that as a reason for his resignation). 331dot (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If the resignation of a prime minister is hardly blurb-worthy, much less so when it's a head of state without executive powers. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Alsoriano. Parochial politix. – Sca (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Along with the aforementioned concerns of notability, the article itself doesn't provide more context than "He resigned on 23 January 2022." Ludicrous (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready for the usual reason. It would also be desirable to name his successor if possible. That said, this is probably WP:ITNR so once article quality is up to scratch it should be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not ITNR. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "*Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election."^[2] What am I missing? -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  List of current heads of state and government says it's the PM that administers the executive. Our own article on President of Armenia calls him a figurehead, in so many words. —Cryptic 03:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment@Cryptic: so in other words, you mean he’s just head of state rather than head of government? Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom could also be seen as a “figurehead,” but would we not post that just as we’d post the succession of their PM? 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:35E6:356B:5DCE:E4E8 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It would be posted, but it probably wouldn't be covered under ITNR.--2600:1700:4579:B80:A946:24EB:504C:7E5A (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Queen Elizabeth is also the head of state of more than one country. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. She is one of the most recognisable and widely-covered individuals of the past century and would certainly warrant a blurb were she to die or leave office, despite not being ITN/R or having any real power. In fact, we even blurbed her husband's death.

• Comment I added the altblurb, but don't support or oppose it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would note that Simonyan is technically only acting President. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not a head of the government, just a ceremonial position. — Amakuru (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Stale. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 22

---

(Posted) RD: Baillieu Myer

Nominator's comments: Australian businessman and philanthropist; newly created article. DanCherek (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fully referenced, comprehensive new article. JennyOz (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 16:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ralph Natale

PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Referenced, okay depth of coverage. Spencer^T•C 21:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Colm Keane

Bloom6132 (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could do with a little pruning of promotion and improvement of the lead. I note a previous version was deleted as promotional and bits of this made me wonder if it had been written by someone connected with the subject, especially the primary sourcing for the degrees. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Reads mostly like a resume in prose format with not much depth IMO. Any additional details that can be added in for depth? Spencer^T•C 00:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saada prison airstrike

Ainty Painty (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Still a stub, needs improvement. Yxuibs (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Clearly a significant war crime with between 70-200 people reported dead and has mainstream media coverage. GWA88 (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle but it's still a stub. Also, the governor of Saada said that the hospitals were collapsed by corpses and injured? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article is not in its best shape. Seems a bit one-sided. Reports indicate at least 70 dead, but anything higher is not sufficiently established. PenangLion (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So why Support? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Because of its notability? PenangLion (talk) 06:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Both notability and article quality are important for posting to ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality probably is important enough for ITN, but the article is barely more than a stub. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on Principle, Oppose on Quality clearly notable enough for ITN, but the article is just as clearly not ready yet. While the article is improving, nothing in the body of the article talks about what happened during the airstrike. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article quality now meets minimum requirements for the front page.NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because this is easily important enough & the article just about good enough to post. Jim Michael (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure what qualifies this for a blurb when the significantly more notable Houthi attack in UAE (with a relatively more in-depth article) directly preceding this was not. This blurb should in the least mention that and be expanded for broader consideration. Gotitbro (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has a death toll which is many times higher. Why do you think the 2022 Abu Dhabi attack is more notable? Jim Michael (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian attacks in Yemen during the ongoing war are not exactly uncommon. But Houthis striking beyond Yemen is, and what received broad coverage in the news including the lead to this retaliatory attack. Gotitbro (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could suggest an alternative blurb which includes a mention of the Abu Dhabi attack. Jim Michael (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Article hasn't been updated with any sources since the breaking news of 21-22 Jan, as there have been more concrete details released then Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

---

(Posted) RD: Clark Gillies

Nominator's comments: Hockey Hall of Fame inductee, won Stanley Cup four times with his team in the 1980s. Article should be good to go. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is. Let's go Islanders. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Stats, awards and infobox factoids all need references. Stephen 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added citations in-body for the infobox and awards. The stats table have a citation on their own now. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb (Blurb posted) RD: Thích Nhất Hạnh

Thriley (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This made the NYT push notifications despite being a non-American figure, so definitely a good candidate. Let's get it in shape (if not already there) quickly so it can be posted timely. {{u Sdkb}} ^talk 21:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. A major international figure in a world religion. BD2412T 04:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along the lines of Vietnamese Thiền Buddhist monk and peace activist Thích Nhất Hạnh dies at age 95. No "old man dies" objections, please, he was relevant up to a very late age. BD2412 T 05:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added blurb into the nomination box per BD2412's comment above. Ktin (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Certainly a major figure in both religion and peace activism at least on par with Archbishop Tutu. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On par how? Tutu was an Anglican, and credited with helping end apartheid. Speaking in vain against the war and for vegetarianism puts Hạnh closer to Jane Fonda, in my eyes. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  His impact is more on spreading his teachings to people's personal practices regarding meditation/psychological teachings, and certainly not vegetarianism. Buddhist monks in East Asian Mahayana countries and Vietnam are required to be vegetarian and there are also a large proportion of Theravada monks who are strongly advocate for vegetarianism even though Theravada doesn't require it. He isn't known mainly for raging against the machine in vain. Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clearing that up. So, in global sports entertainment terms, more of a Diamond Dallas Page. Not identical paths, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Major figure of international significance. Cedar777 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Major figure whose works have been widely translated and disseminated across the globe, especially in English-speaking countries. I strongly agree that he was relevant and remains to be relevant all the way up to and beyond the date of his death—he still has another book that has yet to be (now posthumously) published! --LumensPerSquareMeter (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such an enlightening user name! – Sca (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC) ;-)[reply]

• No Blurb Every old man who dies is relevant to something. This one Buddhism. Still absolutely nothing to the blurb that isn't covered by his bio's opening line (unsourced chunks aside). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn’t be a good death blurb without IH’s “old man dies.” The Kip (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never say that for good death blurbs. A good death blurb has an actual cause, like a helicopter crash, church stabbing or Afghan earthquake. Merely echoing awareness as tribute to big names beloved in Western progressive circles is the bad kind of cause-based voting. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • IH, This sounds a lot like ‘unless someone was worthy of being portrayed in an action adventure film, their death (and their life) was inconsequential.’ Surely the blurb criteria is not this narrow. Cedar777 (talk) 09:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how you inferred that, but no. If Clint Eastwood or Sylvester Stallone dies tomorrow with nothing to blurb but job description and age, it'd be the same. Stories need hooks. RD is for simple recent deaths in the news. It has nothing to do with life beforehand. That part just determines article creation and content here. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Article does not really support a blurb with a lack of dedicated section to legacy/importance/influence, etc. We shouldn't ask the reader to hunt and peck for why a person was given a blurb over an RD. --Masem (t) 17:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should add this is something that is fixable in a reasonable span, just that it should be done. --Masem (t) 21:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstaining the vote as I'm undecided whether this figure deserves a blurb or not. Admittedly enough, I've never heard of him personally, but the article seems to hint at notability. (PenangLion (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Support blurb Internationally recognized activist, author, and teacher of a major world religion for decades. Funcrunch (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – 'Transformative'? Just askin'. – Sca (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Significant figure; (probably) just missed out on a Nobel Peace Prize over a technicality and not because he wasn’t deserving. Schwede66 20:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb or RD. He's been called one of Buddhism's best known second only to the Dalai Lama. Thankfully that hyperbole has been removed from the lead. R.I.P. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb agree that his supranational impact, however lowkey, fulfills the criteria. SN54129 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning If this passes, it becomes precedent. Anybody for whom "one of the second-best in field" is hyperbolic, anyone who maybe deserved that award they never won and everyone with a Lowkey Supranational Impact rating of However is eligible to join the deluge. You want that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes to the point I was in trying to make, in that the article does not give a clear reason - that is not buried in prose - of his importance and significance. The ideas for why we should blurb him are in the article but there should absolutely be a standalone section on Legacy or the like so that questions like the one IH is asking are clearly answered. I think this is reasonable for this person, and I don't think it is an issue that he was "second-best", just that it should be crystal clear why we are giving him a blurb. --Masem (t) 01:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second-best wouldn't be so bad. But one of the second-best, and even a fan calls it a stretch? That's the sort of C-level mediocrity I mean. The Dalai Lama is way different. When that old man dies, a power vacuum opens and a child is reborn, with much ado about something.InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Dalai Lama is also the de-facto head of the exiled Tibetan govt. It is not simply the case of a religious personality, it would be an administrative change which while not exactly ITNR (non-member state) the impact is self-evident and need not be stated. Gotitbro (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consider it nobly silenced, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note that Buddhism, according to WP has more than 500m followers and the subject is a type of cross-over religious leader so his meditation teachings were also adopted by people who still identify as other, eg Abrahamic religions. Where is the evidence that the subject is a third-level religious figure? Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get it, bunch of new age posers. I never claimed to have evidence. Just a message from above strongly suggesting putting him amongst the second-best known is an overstatement ("hyperbole"), rather than a statement or understatement ("bole"/"hypobole"?). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Also there's at least four CNs as I look at it now, meaning its not ready for the bare RD starting point. --Masem (t) 01:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have resolved half of them by removing the uncited statements, the first being a quote attributed to the subject's organization (not the subject himself), which I was unable to find in a reliable source, and the second being two highly problematic paragraphs purporting to identify notable followers, for which it is not clear that the people named are necessarily notable or followers; those paragraphs I moved to the talk page for discussion. BD2412 T 02:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Work on article appears ongoing to clarify (international, half-century+ of) significance for reader. As someone familiar with the subject, I’m already persuaded. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article has an orange banner for ref quality, not ready for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Short of the level of death coverage typical of our RD blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb One of the two main figures of the 20-21st century in bringing Buddhism to western countries, prolific scholar of Buddhism whether one agrees with his reinterpretations or not, notable activist. And whether one likes it or not, major religious figures and scientists have more impact on society at large than old movie stars and sportspeople Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb article looks more than good enough to be posted on RD (not orange-tagged anymore). However, don't see why his death is important enough for the high standard we have to give someone a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Certainly Hanh was a major figure in Buddhism and to an extent the international peace movement but his preeminence therein has not been established here nor in the article. There has been push by specific users to get the death of certain personalities onto a blurb regardless of notability/relevance justification (White, Madden (nom) etc. come to mind recently). This should not be setting a precedent for votes=blurb=consensus. Gotitbro (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am expanding the impact section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose blurb Not sure what Wikipedia‘s obsession is with putting foreign politicians or leaders that no English speaking people have ever heard of in the blurb but not putting notable English speaking people on recent deaths. Put these foreign leaders on the foreign Wikipedia.TomChaplinPoodle (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Come on.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the National Front advert :D SN54129 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] Wow! That was really in bad taste! You should really consider retracting the statement. I also see that this is your first comment / post at WP:ITNC so firstly, welcome to this project. Please engage with topics here in a constructive and open-minded manner. I wish you well. Ktin (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Prolific author and teacher, Hanh was not only vital in spreading Buddhist ideology and philosophy to the West; much of the work of his life centered around pacifism and advocating for peaceful diplomacy around the globe. He is certainly notable enough for a blurb. Ludicrous (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RD Posted but blurb discussion ongoing. --Masem (t) 18:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Not seeing the exceptional level of coverage necessary; RD is sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Top of his field and I am seeing global coverage. Article in good shape too. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. A Google News search did not come up with an awful lot in English and the subject's death isn't getting much ongoing coverage in the UK, as far as I can see; cf Tutu where his funeral & burial arrangements were covered in detail for much of the week after his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see full pieces in the BBC, Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, ABC America, CNN, ABC Australia, Sydney Morning Herald, 9 News Australia (a tabloid!), some in India, France24 about his life and times. Also with regards to funeral rites, note that as the article explains, the Vietnamese government does not exactly get along that well with him, and violently raided one of his monasteries a few years ago. So there is not going to be any official fanfare apart from for devotees. Secondly, as the nomination is not made on the grounds of the manner of his demise, but his life impact, having play by play reporting of his funeral is not a relevant consideration Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bumbubookworm: Actually now found a few more; I think all the accents were confusing the search. As to funeral coverage, that has been a metric we have frequently used at ITN in the past. In terms of impact of work, I'd suggest that of all the people on this page, David Cox had the greatest real-world impact, but no-one has suggested his article for a blurb. Espresso Addict(talk) 01:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that scientists don't get enough recognition and have tried to improve articles on them in the past where I have had time, to no avail in terms of getting a blurb. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/July_2021#(Posted)_RD/Blurb:_Steven_Weinberg and Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2021#(Posted_RD)_RD/Blurb:_E._O._Wilson, with a lot of opposes from sports-oriented editors. Also sadly in the latter case, there were objections claiming that US scientists were favoured without evidence about their technical merits. While sports/entertainment fans have strongly parochial attitudes in many cases, from my experience this isn't the case for people who actually have studied science, so it was sad to see scientists affected by parochial sports wars Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I suggested that David Cox be considered for a blurb. I happened to check the Polish Wikipedia during this period and noticed that their ITN posted his picture. They now have Meat Loaf's picture and so seem to be doing better than the English ITN as our current news picture is now 9 days old. Adding RD pics would give us more choice. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always liked the RD image notion but I know there's a lot of opposition to it from regulars here. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The current vote is 12 for blurb and 5 against blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ITN does not work on vote count, but on consensus. --Masem (t) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am expanding the impact section Bumbubookworm (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consensus implies discussion and compromise. It's not possible to compromise on a binary outcome. We always count votes, but the margin required is whatever the admin decides in the moment. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb certainly worthy of consideration, but does not seem to meet our normal threshold for blurbs. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb [full disclosure - I am a 30 year+ student of Thich Nhat Hahn and I was ordained by him to be a Dharma Teacher in his tradition] In the Buddhist world Thich Nhat Hanh is of tremendous historical importance. Notwithstanding my personal bias as one of his students, I can guarantee that you can ask *any* scholar of Buddhism and you will get the same assessment. He is a major figure in Chan Buddhism - there is no doubt about that. And he has had a tremendous influence on a large number of westerners, including seminal figures in the mindfulness movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vellino (talk • contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong support blurb Europo/atlanto-centrism is showing up on Wikipedia once again 5.44.170.26 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’m not sure if I am allowed to vote as I am the nominator, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an American Supreme Court judge who had relatively little impact beyond the borders of the United States, got a blurb. Thích Nhất Hạnh had a global impact that lasted for many more decades than Ginsburg’s position at the United States Supreme Court and his global impact is arguably far greater and internationally notable than hers. Thriley (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted blurb Consensus in favor of posting as blurb. Spencer^T•C 06:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do I, as the nominator, give myself and those that improved the article credit, or does someone else do that? I am fairly new to this so I am a bit unsure. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spencer:? Thriley (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but the bot just gave you recognition. The sound of one hand clapping? In any case, I don't blame you for overcoming my "bad vibes", cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Elza Soares

Nominator's comments: Brazilian cultural icon. Article needs a lot of work, hope a few of you can help me with it! Mooonswimmer 21:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Too many footnote-free paragraphs. Most of the bullet-points in Discography are unreferenced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Louie Anderson

Nominator's comments: American comedian and actor Thriley (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The WP:PROSELINE in the Career section is atrocious. And the filmography is unsourced. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have fixed the proseline in the Career section, this should be good to go. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Filmography remains unreferenced. Please add REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC) And there are currently about 10 {cn} or {cspan} tags in the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Meat Loaf

Nominator's comments: American singer. Article needs some updating first with many citations needed in places 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:1C95:EB96:47A0:7A39 (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also an actor, dead at 74, no blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would post anything for WP, but I wont post that with some unsourced sections and CN tags. But once they're fixed, then yes, post. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ITN can wait For crying out loud, you know this needs sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - at least 11 un-cited statements still requiring citations. (PenangLion (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Two out of three* ain't bad but the referencing could do with work first — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  * notability and newsworthiness, idk[reply]
• Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd do anything for a blurb... Howard the Duck (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you nominate All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship for ITN/R? WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...But I won't do that. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I don't he's in blurbable territory. A household name and popular, and the usually raft of awards, but didn't really affect or change the music industry (the standard I use being someone like Prince or David Bowie for that). --Masem (t) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno; Bat out of Hell is one of the 10 best-selling albums of all-time. I think it's arguable either way, tbh. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop right there, I gotta know right now, before we go any further...did you fix the maintenance tags? There are 9 {{cn}} tags remaining. Can we either cite those things or pull the statements if they are not necessary? Jehochman^Talk 13:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only 11 tags now lol. Probably not Mandelarly "blub-worthy". Editing is so enjoyable with ITN illuminating the main page! Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No loafing around on this one, you meatheads! – Sca (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay cool baby, down to 2 cn's! (Support RD). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with 2 cn tags (after I moved the content with the others to the talk page). Jehochman ^Talk 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be Captain Buzzkill, but there's still tons of unsourced statements. The last three claims in the "The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1974/75)" paragraph, at least four or five I can see in the next section ("Bat Out of Hell (1977)"), and so on. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not only multiple cn tags but also an unreferenced filmography.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once cn tags are fixed up. Once that happens, it's off to RD! Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are currently 38 citation needed tags, plus some {{unsourced section}} tags I placed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oooo, disheartening. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD when ready—others took the words right out of my mouth. He was a hot patootie, and I think that clearing up two out three tags ain't bad. Once the article is ready, let's send him off to paradise (by the dashboard light). I'd lie for you, and that's the truth, and while we'd do anything for the Main Page, we won't do that. Imzadi 1979 → 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought he was a sweet potato. – Sca (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 38 cn tags (and one could add another half a dozen easily, the Stoney and Meat Loaf (1971) section is 90% unsourced) plus two more completely unsourced sections. Long way to go here. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way, way, way, too many American -entric stories ITN. Just because English Wikipedia is English, it should still have an international focus. I propose it is listed under "recent deaths" instead. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it is listed as "RD: Meat Loaf". Howard the Duck (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me sleep on it. I’ll give you an answer in the morning. (Whaddya mean you gotta know right now?) Still plenty of tags. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If being the artist that produced the fourth biggest selling album of all time, i.e. Bat Out of Hell, isn't enough to go into ITN, then who is??? SethWhales ^talk 12:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) (non American BTW)[reply]
  • Seth Whales, the article currently has 43 citation needed tags. That will keep any biography off of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Echoing the previous comment - he was one of the biggest selling artists in music. This doesn't even warrant a debate, he should obviously be listed in the Recent Deaths - without question. It's an embarrassment for this community that this simple update has not been implemented yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.121.148 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's hardly a "simple update" with the number of unsourced statements in the article.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD – With 148 footnotes, it can't be all that bad. Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to happen until the citation needed tags are dealt with. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trim it and move it. Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be absolutely inappropriate for what would need to be trimmed - that's sweeping the mess under the rug, and thus not reflect a quality article. I could see if we did that for one or two unsourced statement, but not the chunk in the article presently. --Masem (t) 16:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Especially given that most of a whole decade currently needs cites. More importantly, I'd also point out that there are quite a lot of primary sources in the article, plus five references to IMDB and five references to YouTube as well, not to mention blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Black Kite (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That being so, oppose as substandard. – Sca (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't believe we, as a group, are so incompetent that we couldn't figure out how to post this. Jehochman^Talk 13:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When Norman Hunter was taken critically ill in 2020, his article looked like this, just 5 sources. Less than two days later it had 43 sources. If I and a few others can do this to a relatively obscure (in global terms) article in 36-odd hours (and see also Trevor Cherry which took even less time), it is somewhat surprising that no-one has stepped up to fix 38 sources on a supposedly high-profile one. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At one point there were 11 and I zapped 8. Then somebody tagged 60+ more. It's a revolving door. The article has 150+ citations, but that's not enough. Jehochman ^Talk 21:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Pretty stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is quite a surprise. Failed nominations often look quite close to being posted? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reverting the close; RDs have seven days to be posted. Closing the discussion just means there is even less chance the work will be done. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yawn. – Sca (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's defective! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This community is pathetic. Just add the link and get this interminable debate over with. I'm not even a fan but he's obviously a notable enough figure to warrant inclusion in the RD summary.24.80.7.130 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "pathetic"? Complaints like that should go to Talk:Meat Loaf. Please fix the citation problems on that article before coming to ITNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 30+ {cn} tags remain unresolved. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It was long ago and it was far away and it was so much better than it is today Thriley (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 20

---

(Posted) RD: Emil Mangelsdorff

Nominator's comments: Frankfurt Jazz Legend Grimes2 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit short but long enough (309 words) and with enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. AGF'd all non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Goalby

Bloom6132 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Slim but meets minimum standards, referenced. Spencer^T•C 05:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention) 2022 Bogoso explosion

Nominator's comments: Explosion of mining explosives in Ghana kills at least 17 and injures at least 59. Article very short at present, but sure to expand as more sources cover this Dumelow (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment BBC says 500 buildings affected, some destroyed. Al Jazeera, citing same guy, says all 500 destroyed. They can't both be right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Seji Saji Amedonu, deputy director general of the National Disaster Management Organisation (NADMO), said 500 buildings had been destroyed. A regional emergency official told local media he had seen 10 dead bodies." - Al Jazeera. (PenangLion (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)) PenangLion (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "He said about 500 houses were affected - some of which were completely destroyed - in Appiatse between Bogoso and the village of Bawdie." - BBC. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Conflicting reports (screams). I guess we need to wait until clearer news reports are made. PenangLion (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait let's get some clarity here. Also, the article is little more than an oversized stub right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The death toll seems to be confirmed at 13, having been revised down from 17, according to the BBC, Rueters and Washington Post. The number of injuries is less clear, BBC say 45 "in hospital", Al Jazeera and CNN: 59 injured, Reuters: 180 injured, Washington Post: 177 injured. Only Al Jazeera are giving a number of buildings destroyed (500), BBC say "many houses flattened" and at least 380 people "without shelter". The BBC and Washington Post articles were updated most recently, then CNN. Al Jazeera is the oldest. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The death toll seems to have stabilised at 13, the more recent sources state 500 buildings damaged so I have amended the article and blurb. There's a couple of good photographs which seem to have come from a drone flown by a local Open Street Map enthusiast - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is good enough & it's important enough because hundreds of houses were destroyed. Had this happened in the Western world, it'd have been posted within hours. Jim Michael (talk) 09:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bobs Worth

Nominator's comments: Irish racehorse, died in a "field accident" PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 03:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Birthday and death age do not agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• All thoroughbread horses in the northern hemisphere have birthday on 1 January (and 1 August for southern hemisphere) [25]. So his first birthday would have been 1 January 2006 (when he was 7 months old), and 17th birthday would have been 1 January 2022. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is a gap in coverage between 2015 and now. Joofjoof (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was retired in 2016 to a stud farm. A fun, peaceful retirement playing with children, so presumably there's nothing to write home about. --PFHLai (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • PFHLai Thanks, that works. Sourcing looks fine now (pedigree source is paywalled). Joofjoof (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 07:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Cox (statistician)

Nominator's comments: British statistician with a variety of notable work in the field of statistics and applied probability Engineerchange (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready Bibliography needs sourcing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I took care of the two {{cn}}. The bibliography really doesn't need sourcing; that's just busywork which will duplicate the {{authority control}}. The real issue is whether he should get a blurb as being at the top of his field – statistics. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick qn - Does the bibliography not require sourcing? I have been working all my articles under the assumption that bibliography (as with other 'ography-ies) need to be sourced as well. The only distinction (I think) is that bibliographies can be cited based on the books' ISBN numbers. The only thing that doesn't require additional sourcing as explained to me once is plot sections of books (particularly fiction) where the book itself is considered the source. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A general source has now been provided from Nuffield College, Oxford. I'd prefer isbns to be provided because it makes the books easier to locate, but I don't think it needs to hold up main-page exposure. Espresso Addict(talk) 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I think we are on the same-page. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Cox was a top-field statistician, shouldn't his lead reflect that? His lead is rather short in my opinion. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not checked in detail but at minimum... The lead needs writing; many readers do not progress any further. The first two bullet points in the Career section need independent sources and the book for bullet point 3 needs page nos. There are numerous apparently unsourced facts eg date of birth, list of students, several of the awards, and most of the bibliography section (including the leading sentences). Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any accessible obituaries? I'm happy to help improving this but it's a bit thin at the moment. I don't doubt his significance, but the current article does not make a good case for it. On a technical point, it's not clear whether his death is "in the news" given that all the announcements I've seen have been societies or colleges. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Resolved most, if not all, of comments above: updated lead, cited date of birth, cited doctoral students, cited two bullet points in Career section and page of book for bullet point 3, cited bibliography section (count of books he authored, names of books he authored, books he edited), cited awards. --Engineerchange (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention) 2022 Barbadian general election

Nominator's comments: Comprehensive victory for the BLP. Article needs constituency-level results and prose on the outcome. LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Two consecutive 100% landslides in a liberal democracy is remarkable to say the least. Proposed altblurb. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality would be nice to have constituency results, definitely want some text about the results/reactions to results. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... for now. A 200-word text stub with tables. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Proposed another altblurb.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now The article doesn't meet the quality requirements to be on the Main Page: less than half of the article has prose, incomplete tables, the results section has no prose and there is no "Aftermath" or "Reactions" section. A lot of work to be done. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready per Sca. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality as per Joseph2302. Ornithoptera (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, Per above, the article is not ready Alex-h (talk) 14:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on lack of info for being a stub while the tables were not updated. (PenangLion (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• @PFHLai, Spencer, and Stephen: The results look finished now, and there is some more text. Joofjoof (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Zara Rutherford

Lawrence Ruiz (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very impressive accomplishment and record in aviation. She is also the first women to complete a circumnavigation in a microflight. Yxuibs (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Source coverage looks good at first glance. That said, ITN has not posted circumnavigation attempts since Steve Fossett in 2005. Joofjoof (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also the 2014 discussion around Jerrie Mock's RD nomination. Joofjoof (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb Impressive record for a young person, it's getting global coverage and article is in good shape. I mean flying around the world and making that into a record is pretty internationally notable and significant. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. BD2412 T 06:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - for significance and coverage but the blurb needs to be appropriately rephrased. (PenangLion (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• I wrote an altblurb. Mlb96 (talk) 09:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT1 article looks good enough, and it is in the news. FYI, I removed a blocked sockpuppet from the updaters list, as we shouldn't be giving them ITN credits, as per WP:DENY. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Although is the image definitely free? I can't see anywhere on the Youtube video that it's taken from that says it's released under CC licence (maybe I'm just missing where it is)? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for pointing this out, Joseph2302. Just removed the pic from MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've also removed it from Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection and nominated it for deletion on Commons.—Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Good morning, America! Let's see what was nom'ed and posted while you were asleep. Oh, look: a Brit set an incremental record with an insignificant gender qualifier! Those always get posted quick. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• More in the news than some of the US-centric stuff that gets posted here.... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bias is not reserved for Americans. We don't rush to post American stories when the Brits are asleep, and the opposite should hold true. There are thousands of stories in the news everyday, but we try to be selective. A younger person did this six months ago but wasn't even nominated, probably because we don't generally post incremental records. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @GreatCaesarsGhost: That's incorrect. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death got a blurb in only 23 minutes while Europeans were asleep.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And look how much trouble that caused! GreatCaesarsGhost 19:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sad that this got posted while most of the Western Hemisphere was asleep. I thought we were going to do better about that. WaltCip-(talk) 12:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Use the other photo from the article. It has a message that indicates a proper license. Jehochman^Talk 12:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Zara Rutherford 2021-01-18.jpeg also has questionable licencing, as the Permission section of the image seems to imply permission is from a conversation with the person herself- but Rutheerford won't be the photographer, and thus isn't the copyright holder. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that Rutherford didn't use a timer? How do you know that the media person posting the image wasn't the photographer? I think this is a situation where we should accept the representation that's been made. Jehochman^Talk 14:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't. Which is why Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries should be followed, especially for an image on the Main Page.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay then. Jehochman^Talk 15:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Greetings! Any chance we can use one of the images of Ms Rutherford and get the current satellite .gif animation replaced. Has been there for ~5 days and is of a very low quality. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          The license processing for her current lead image is still pending.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything would be better than the perpetually re-exploding Tonga volcano -- even a pic of her plane. -- Sca (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: btw -- not sure where we should be reporting this -- but, the iOS Wikipedia app has had Ms Rutherford's image for three days now. So, if there is an issue, we should be letting them know asap. Ktin (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know who "them" is either. I see you started Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#iOS_Wikipedia_App, which seems as good a place as any. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any concern with using

Shark ULL

this image? Seems like this one has permissions etc alright. This is day 10 of the current image (satellite animation) and that can do with a change. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting oppose -- per WaltCip. Should not have been blurbed, but alas. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The arguments here are irrational. Yes, it might have been problematic to post it without 'waiting' but what arguments would have been raised then is nowhere clearly stated. The second line of argument that a women-specific is not notable should ask themselves why such achievements still make news based on that. Even I am on the borderline about this, but better arguments for non-inclusion should be made. Gotitbro (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The story is plainly tabloid fodder. Women have done this before, and younger people have done it. If we are too invoke superlatives to make something sound impressive, those most account for some challenge to the accomplishment. Being a woman isn't a handicap in this field; indeed, she is only slightly older than the male record-holder. And she is not so young that her age is any handicap. This is Guinness Record level garbage, and we're better than this. GreatCaesarsGhost 04:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Does pass the WP:NOTAMERICAN hurdle.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When has there ever been any example of an American parallel to this story being posted on ITN? WaltCip-(talk) 20:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull This should never have been posted. These kinds of 'adventures' eg sailing/flying/hot air balloons are not mainstream sports where there is more competition and you can say that a person has surpassed the previous technical standard by improving the world record (eg faster, higher, stronger), it is simply some doing something that has already been done at a younger age. Given that these pursuits are dependent on machinery, and to a large extent the main obstacle in these adventures is not making a mistake and having an accident. However, the equipment is much more automated now and with improved telecommunications it is easier to get external assistance/advice if required so less experienced/situationally aware younger people can pull this off. In no way can a teenager sailing or flying around the world at their own pace be compared to the Olympic/professional sailors or fighter pilots who have to read the conditions and change course every second. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Support - Definitely for ITN. Not everythinh have to be big profiled, this is exactly the kind of stories ITN needs from time to time.BabbaQ (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Oppose per Bumbu. The real impact of this is: none. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting Oppose Not really seeing ITN level significance. Would have worked better as a DYK. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull I cannot see this making first page news, let alone headlines. Juxlos (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 19

---

(Posted) RD: Gloria McMillan

Nominator's comments: American actress. 750+ words. Need help with refs for divorce and second marriage. --PFHLai (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC) The sentence with iffy materials on divorce and wedding details have been revised to avoid the need for more citations. No more {cn} tags left. --PFHLai (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as satisfactory. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As TRM would say Satis. Looks good for homepage / RD. Let's get it there before it falls-off in ~6 hours. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Folks - this one has 1 hour left to fall-off the page. I think this can go to homepage as-is. Ktin (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sonya Biddle

Nominator's comments: Montreal actress and municipal politician. Should be long enough with 550+ words of readable prose. Need help with better refs for her acting career than IMDb. Thanks.^{[That line has been revised to avoid the use of IMDb as ref. --PFHLai (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)]} --PFHLai (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good assuming all of those offline references are used properly. An infobox would help, but is not required. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks good and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Agree with Muboshgu that an infobox would help. Also, can someone examine if the electoral record tables are fine? I have not seen that arrangement (of collapse / hide / show) recently. Let's get this one to homepage before it falls-off the page in ~6 hours. Ktin (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 20:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Hardy Krüger

Nominator's comments: German actor in international films Grimes2 (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Quite Ready A single CN, but it's significant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ad Orientem: Fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources say, that he was drafted at the age of 16. (ambigious: 1944 or 1945). Text removed. Grimes2 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No significant issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gaspard Ulliel

Nominator's comments: French actor who was killed in a skiing accident. The article has been updated but the career section could be better sourced. Calidum 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article could bear some improvement, but I don'think it's so poor that it should be excluded from ITN — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article sufficient, decent details on death. Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready Very significant gaps in referencing. The entire filmography is unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Ad Orientem, I have improved the referencing, if you'd mind taking another look. PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 05:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Top FYI, this was the top read article yesterday. Related articles like Moon Knight are getting lots of traffic too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is short but adequate. Referencing is much improved. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article looks a great deal better than when I last checked, but is Rotten Tomatoes really a reliable source? I'd assumed it was on a level with IMDb. Espresso Addict(talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Espresso Addict, initially I would have assumed the same, but WP:RSP lists it as acceptable, except for reliability of blog articles and critic opinion pages (no consensus) and user reviews (generally unreliable). As far as I can tell, this doesn't fall under either of those categories and should be okay for something like cast members. PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Administrator needed) Ukrainian Crisis

Nominator's comments: I've been on the fence as to whether or not this should be on the main page for a while. But I think things have reached a point where it needs to be at least discussed. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This has been escalating for quite a bit, at this point I think it's worthy. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing situation with lots of coverage. And the article has been updated for events in the 24 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no singular event that stated this but let's of little fires that clearly indicate far higher tensions than we expect.--Masem (t) 15:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing - lots of RS coverage, notable, tensions rising between Russia, Ukraine, and NATO. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - definitely for Ongoing. Will likely be in the headlines for a long time.BabbaQ (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Tensions are high, and there is a real possibility of Russia invading Ukraine. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Yep. I think we're there. I've been in the same boat as the nominator. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Though I will say, in addition to my above !vote, that the article feels unreadable. It's just a day-by-day timeline of events as they have progressed and doesn't really give an overall picture of what has precipitated the crisis and why it is persisting. I'm aware this is due to it being a developing story, but we really need to find a way to separate the meat and potatoes from the ice cream. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. WP:PROSELINE issues, needs to be rewritten in a more narrative style more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Agnostic on all other matters, but we can't post this to the main page in the current state. Also, there's only been 3 small sentences of updates in the past week; that's hardly enough to justify ongoing status. If and when the article is rewritten and expanded with more recent events, it will be appropriate for ongoing. It isn't there now. While it is quite likely that there is enough out there in the news so that this is really an ongoing story, the wikipedia article we are recommending people read is NOT reflective of that. That needs to be fixed before it is posted to the main page. --Jayron32 17:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Go for it yourself, mi amigo.Fakescientist8000 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't particularly want it to be on the main page. If someone else wants it on the main page, I am willing to assess it for appropriateness, and will give my opinion of it belongs or not. Since it is not something I myself want, I don't have any impetus to spend time fixing it up. But if you want it on the main page, then you feel free to fix it yourself, and I will re-assess it. The difference between you and me in this case is you have a desire to see something happen. I'm not particularly interested one way or another. --Jayron32 20:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. There has been a lot of sabre rattling, diplomatic posturing etc. but nothing concrete has happened, either on the ground or in the negotiations. If Russia invades, or some major diplomatic agreement is reached, then I'm willing to reconsider. For the moment it's just a lot of arguing about what might happen. I also agree with WaltCip and Jayron that the article is a mess of PROSELINE. Modest Genius ^talk 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Been a near-constant major news item for most of the last two-three weeks as tensions continue to heighten. The Kip (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A diplomatic incident does not need "things to happen" to be notable. The key thing is its intangible political effects. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In the long list of ongoing armed conflicts (right), this one is deep down the list at #37, where it is classified as "minor". So, it's not clear why it should get priority over all the others. And, as the conflict dates back to 2014, it doesn't seem that it's going to finish any time soon. Perhaps we should just have a permanent link to the list? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Only because it's really overstated that this is something new. The Russo-Ukrainian War has been going on for over seven years now, and this is merely a flashpoint of it. I feel the current troop build-up would be less reported on if news sources acknowledged the war as they should have in the years prior. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This now sees 100,000 mechanized troops assembled for an unprecedented offensive, mainstream warnings of WW3 (and sober articles saying it’s not that), and has prompted two Biden–Putin summits and a rare meeting of the Russia–NATO Council. —Michael Z. 21:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been seeing some pretty heavy editing since this was posted. Those who had article quality concerns might want to take another look. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't say it looks better. In fact, it's even worse because now it's just way too lengthy. WaltCip-(talk) 00:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Strong Support per above. Constant major news item with huge coverage. Very real possibility of escalation (hopefully it would not) Nyanardsan (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Very strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, there has been a major escalation of tensions already and we should not wait until the actual invasion to post this story. Nsk92 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - article has a clean-up banner currently which seems like a valid quality concern, and bunch of refs look questionable. - Indefensible (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Background section needs cleanup/subsections, and recent events could use some additional expansion. Oppose until article quality is improved. Spencer^T•C 04:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is "in the news" for a reason, a major international ongoing diplomatic incident. If it escalates that will only warrant a blurb and further elongation of this on ongoing, escalation should not be a preclusion for this now. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This has been in the world news for a while with plenty of articles. The significance of the conflict is great, as it could be the largest war in Europe since World War 2. The article certainly needs improvements, but it's bound to happen with a greater visibility on WP:ITN and hopefully more editors joining the effort. --Mindaur (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - It's not looking good, and the context behind the event is terribly significant. Barring from the article quality it's a must-have. True, it is a continuation of Russo-Ukrainian tensions since 2014, but this escalation is distinct. I genuinely fear a war might happen. (PenangLion (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Note Article is improving, especially with growing and eliminating the proseline issues, but it still needs a little work. Several of the new sections are lacking for want of proper references. That needs fixing before we can post this. It's getting better, but it's still not main page ready. --Jayron32 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait/Oppose Ongooing – There have been anticipatory stories about the likelihood of a Russian attack for weeks. (Thursday's examples: [26][27][28][29].) Let's not jump the gun. It's still a non-event. If there were a Russian attack on Ukraine, it certainly would engender myriad long-term follow-ups that eventually could be moved to Ongoing, which was devised for precisely that sort of news play. – Sca (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the header, you will see that this is an Ongoing nomination. If and when an actual invasion occurs, that will certainly be worthy of a blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was aware of that, and was arguing against sticking it in Ongoing now, because as said above it's still a non-event at this point, no matter how much topical wordage is expended daily. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Keep in mind that it's late afternoon in Ukraine. If the Russians were going to attack today they probably would have done so hours ago. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they go in another way, I suppose. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under Nacht und Nebel? – The Nebel in this scenario being the fog of war. – Sca (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sca: The article is currently about a "crisis" and that's what's ongoing. It is very notable and unprecedented event as it stands, with some significant implications already, regardless whether there will be an invasion. The fact that it can escalate further shouldn't be relevant (the Cuban Missile Crisis could have also escalated further). --Mindaur (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Late-cycle coverage: "Biden issues new warning to Russia over invading Ukraine" (AP), "US accuses Russia of conspiring to take over Ukraine government" (Guardian). – Sca (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait It still doesn't seem all that more than threats and warnings over recent months and, perhaps more importantly in this case, are there chances that American website Wikipedia saying there's something big happening in Ukraine could actually be seen as some American aggression ("Look, America says we already invaded, that's war of words, they're lying, making us look bad... let's invade")But really, with how angry Venezuela politicians got over Wikipedia I wouldn't be surprised. If/when Russia invade, post that. Kingsif (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would support this seeing how this is an increasingly escalating military/diplomatic tension however the article is in a bad state for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Andrew, Brigade Piron and Kingsif. There are 36 tenser ongoing tensions, with key points that aren't vague intangible posturing. If diplomacy fails and war breaks, post that (assuming the WWW is up). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major diplomatic crisis, widely covered and is ongoing. Heythereimaguy (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant front page coverage in most English-language news, top-ish positions in non English language news. Kinda like the Persian Gulf crisis back in early 2020. Juxlos (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose International dick rattling that just happens to involve a country a lot of our editors love to hate. Much less significant than several other border conflicts that have been ignored for decades by Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – As long as the politicos are still talking the boys aren't fighting. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Ergo, wait. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now for now, as the actions are clear saber-rattling. As we saw in Crimea, Russia is not going to telegraph their plans for months ahead of time if they actually plan to invade. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, It is all politics now, no action has occured. Alex-h (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as an ongoing event/news story. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is an ongoing major event and it has the potentiality to evolve in a shooting war. P1221 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post potentialities. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I have not nominated a potentiality. I have nominated an ongoing and rapidly evolving diplomatic/military security crisis that has been on the front page of most reputable newspapers and websites for weeks. This is not a hypothetical. It is very real, and it is ongoing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute "most", and suggest that you are in no position to make such a claim. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you google "Ukraine", almost all the results are linked to this crisis... P1221 (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you might not understand how Google works. If YOU Google "Ukraine" you will see very different results from those I will see. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't see what you see. WaltCip-(talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – No substantive change. [35] [36] [37] [38] – Sca (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – War of the Words. [39] [40] [41] [42] – Sca (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Words? Not really: [43][44][45][46] --Mindaur (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ongoing geopolitical struggle. It doesn't need to have actual shooting to have an impact/destabilise/manipulate others' actions Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Post if some sort of military offensive actually begins, but otherwise it's all speculation and politics, which might run for months. — Amakuru (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Thanks to some proactive editors, I can make a note that the article had major improvements and now looks much better! --Mindaur (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Tensions rise. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] – Sca (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't shake the feeling that we are sleepwalking into something terrible. It feels like August. Just not sure if it's 1938 or 1939. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1938 is done. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's a widely reported diplomatic crisis with a lot at stake and mentioning it is probably overdue. – Anne drew 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Its an imminent threat to the point that UK and US embassies have been partially evacuated. It's already late for the main page. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whatever the outcome, this already has significant consequences for the world security order and thus has is of interest here. Yakikaki (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If Russia invades then this should be posted immediately, but this hasn't actually happened yet (and hopefully it won't). We should only post news after it happens, and not try to do it before. Also, why has a fairly reasonable comment above been hidden away? This appears to have been done solely based on the fact that the poster is Russian. Are Russians not allowed to edit English Wikipedia now? The comment was well within the bounds of this discussion and quite clearly didn't contain any 'disinformation' of any kind. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, Effy Midwinter. I added the collapse tag (I originally simply removed it, but hey, Wikipedia isn't censored), and I only note the origin of the IP address because the objectively false assertion that the Russian government didn't interfere in the 2016 US election is a common talking point among online Russian propagandists. Feel free to undo this if you feel this objective disinformation adds anything meaningful, let alone constructive, to the conversation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point about the claims of collusion. I had been thinking more about the claims that the FSB had blackmailed Trump over a sex tape. My mistake. I still think 'disinformation' is a bit strong though. Never mind. Effy Midwinter (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think ongoing would be ok but have there been ongoing items without blurbs first? 2A02:2F0E:D11A:4E00:556:C25E:EBCE:3E2E (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Wikipedia is already months late for this. Article is reasonably well-written, and in the event that war isn't imminent (it clearly appears that way), it's at least all the news is talking about even compared to COVID-19, which we've had in 'Ongoing' for over two years now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of 38 !votes, around 63% of editors support this becoming an "Ongoing" event. That is a consensus, but it is up to an admin to bring this to "Ongoing" or not. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Not much going on. [52][53][54][55] – Sca (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN is not a news ticker, but Sca is. WaltCip-(talk) 13:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Walt: Three bells is an URGENT, five bells is a BULLETIN, and 10 bells is a FLASH, though you and I are unlikely ever to hear the latter in this world. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Support – Significant developments, mobilization and statements from foreign leaders. Definitely should be posted. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not aware that anyone has "mobilized" his armed forces. This isn't 1914, when Czar Nicky ordered mobilization, making WWI inevitable due to interrelated alliances. – Sca (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is true. Putin is not Hitler, and is not invading countries for purely ideological reasons. He's far more calculating than that. WaltCip-(talk) 19:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, all that happened so far is talks, warnings, and threats that something might happen. But it did not happen yet.Fulmard (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Close Consensus to post will not develop absent a direct military attack. In such case it would likely be posted as a blurb. This discussion has run its useful course. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By my count it's 25 support to 14 wait/oppose (+1 oppose if we want to count that Russian IP address) at this point - while we can continue to argue, I would think consensus is clearly in favour of posting. Canadianerk (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. This is a good article which likely wouldn't be posted in the case of an invasion (which would have a standalone article). In my view this is already notable enough without speculating what will happen next and has plenty of coverage by RS and attention by world leaders; undoubtedly one of the most important stories of the year. Davey2116 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - 26 support, 14 wait/oppose. I think in the end the discussion is inconclusive for now, unless major military/diplomatic action occurs. (PenangLion (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

How is 26-14 inclonclusive? It’s a pretty clear consensus to post.BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus is a general agreement about something. With 35% opposed, we don't obviously don't have general agreement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Threats fly, talk continues. [56][57][58][59][60][61][62] – Sca (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a bit unhinged to post these continuous "updates". Are you ok or do you need help? 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:E483:5453:F34A:91D (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding IP user's post is that user's only contribution to Wikipedia. – Sca (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned previously, Sca (talk · contribs) is a news ticker. Heythereimaguy (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is clearly important enough. Many countries are mobilizing, it may be the prelude to a very serious situation in Europe and it's clear that it has continued international coverage. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: From what I can tell, the last substantial update looks like it's from 22 January, 4 days ago. Already having issues meeting what would need to be "continually updated" to stay on Ongoing, unless there is a different target article. Spencer^T•C 20:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This would be better as a blurb if and when an invasion happens.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Late-cycle updates – more blather: AP BBC – Sca (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

---

RD: Badal Roy

Nominator's comments: Indian Tabla player. Discography might be an undoing in the attempt to get to mainpage / RD. Let's see if we can work this one. Ktin (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Narayan Debnath

Nominator's comments: Indian cartoonist. Article requires some attention before going to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Needs more references. Spencer^T•C 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry folks. Buried with off-wiki activities and this one will have to pass. RIP. Ktin (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: André Leon Talley

Nominator's comments: Needs a few citations (particularly filmography) and overall could stand to be fleshed out but meets minimum length/breadth already. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Now thoroughly referenced and content has been expanded as well. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article looks ready: an in-depth coverage of his career and life and fully sourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lusia Harris

Nominator's comments: Article is a Good Article --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article is a GA, and everything is sourced (apart from one unsourced sentence which I removed). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Joseph2302. The article is in good shape, everything is cited. RD ready. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article contains no information about her death, except an update to the date. I would expect well-referenced text in the body of the article explaining what is known about her death. Simply updating the date of death is not sufficient. If anyone thinks to fix this, then consider this opposition obviated. --Jayron32 13:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Support I added a bit to it as well based on the source material. --Jayron32 13:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support @Jayron32: Sourced sentence on death added.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Thanks to those who made the GA. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Close) New Indonesian capital

(Posted) Microsoft acquires Activision-Blizzard

(Posted) RD: Francisco Gento

Nominator's comments: Spanish football legend, one of the greatest of all time. BastianMAT (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A single sentence on his international career? Needs some real expansion. --Jayron32 14:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good now. --Jayron32 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the international details 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:B922:CE73:626B:C28F (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jayron32: Article seems to be in good shape now with the section expanded and most of it backed up by sources. Considering how big of a legend Gento was in football, getting it out on the page should be suitable now. BastianMAT (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added some cn tags, but generally the wikibio is in good condition. Honours sections should have more sources and I think the Legacy section is not very objective. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alsoriano97: Both seem to be better now, article should be in a good shape to get out on the page now. BastianMAT (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Now looks good. Marking ready. Nice work! _-_Alsoriano97 (tal) 18:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @BastianMAT: I've added a few more cn tags. Can you please take a look? _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsoriano97: No worries, I resolved that. BastianMAT (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Now it’s surely ready. Great job Bastian! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 23:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 17

---

(Posted) RD: M. K. Prasad

Nominator's comments: Indian environmentalist. Article requires some work. I will work on it unless someone wants to join-in and lend a hand. Edits done. Article is a reasonable C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (800+ words) and with enough footnotes across the prose, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 18:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yvette Mimieux

Thriley (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are about 10 {cn} tags in the prose and dozens of unreferenced bullet-points under Filmography, Television work and Recordings. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gilbert S. Merritt Jr.

PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 06:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Article is mostly a resume in prose format for his legal career: what were major cases he oversaw as a judge? Would be ready with a couple sentences (5-6?) about important cases. Spencer^T•C 05:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bill Jackson

PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 06:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. Spencer^T•C 05:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Request: Ref. #1 is used 7 times in this wikibio. Its link to Chicago Tribune is dead. Can it be updated, please? Is it the same as this, please? I don't have a subscription to verify. --PFHLai (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC) BTW, I should add that I have found no other concerns with this nom. This wikibio is READY for RD. It would be great if the deadlink in Ref. #1 can be updated or replaced before the link goes on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentPFHLai, thanks for bringing that up; the issue has been resolved. PCN02WPS(talk contribs) 00:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for updating the linked reference there, PCN02WPS. I'm marking this nom as 'ready'. --PFHLai (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jonathan Brown (art historian)

Nominator's comments: Noted American art historian, expert on Diego Velázquez. I can take no credit for updating. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Looks rather light on referencing, particularly in the Curating and Selected Publications sections. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on refs. For publications, are Google Books links generally seen as sufficient? Seidenstud (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Seidenstud: A valid (linked) ISBN is probably better; the ISBN template links to Google Books and other resources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In the art history world, the guy was an absolute legend. I'm working on fixing the lightness of refs right now. Seidenstud (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The refs have been much improved - marking as ready. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• About half of the Selected publications section is unreferenced. Please add more footnotes or make the list more selected. --PFHLai (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai:, what exactly is there to be referenced in any "selected publications" section? The books themselves are cited inline, and so meet WP:V. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron:, about half of the bullet-points in Jonathan Brown (art historian)#Selected publications have no footnotes nor ISBN number. For instance, for the first bullet-point, I can't tell if the book Italy and Spain, 1600-1750: Sources and Documents exists, or check if it was co-authored by Enggrass, or verify 1970 as the year of publication. --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your other point below, but I doubt very much that the above is anything more that personal preference. Can you point me to the policy or MOS which requires this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just pointed out that half of that section is unreferenced, and you want to talk policy? Sigh... --PFHLai (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section, point #3: "Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters." If just by eyeballing, half of the section looks unreferenced, you can't really convince me that the quality of sourcing is good enough, can you? Missing one or two bullet-points might be small enough an issue to disregard. We don't need FAs here. Just some decent articles with no glaring issues. The nominated wikibio is almost ready. I have no problems with the prose. --PFHLai (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Another minor issue: Awards listed in the infobox are unreferenced. --PFHLai (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In addition to the points that PFHLai raises, the biographical material is very thin. Also a reliable independent source is needed for the pioneering nature of his exhibitions. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have thrown in as many footnotes or ISBN to the Selected publications section as I could find and commented out one unreferenced bullet-point (I can't find the ISBN). I have also removed the word "pioneering" and hopefully that sentence identified by Espresso Addict no longer needs a citation for that. I hope someone can find the refs for the awards in the infobox and write more to address the Espresso Addict's "biographical material is very thin" before this nom's eligibility runs out in less than one hour. --PFHLai (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Karim Ouellet

Bloom6132 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – A bit thin at 280 words. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Long enough (357 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Birju Maharaj

Nominator's comments: Indian dancer. Article requires some work. Edits done. Article is a reasonable C-class biography. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Current version has him dead at 83 and 84. After that's settled, maybe. It's quite stubby. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @InedibleHulk: Thanks for checking. Edits done. Please have a look. Ktin (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see you've gone against the source, and with the original birthday math. A road less traveled, but at least it's not internally inconsistent anymore. Weak Support! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please can I request an editor / admin to have a look at this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks to be in good shape. --Jayron32 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support too, but is there still a confusion wrt his age at death? SN54129 16:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Serial_Number_54129 -- I do not believe so. We just used his date of birth which was already available and sourced. Ktin (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support all good, a great addition to the man page. SN54129 23:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late Reply The birthday alternated between 1938 and 1937 during the last 16 years of his life, no source. After he died and while the author of the current source likely Googled him, the article was on 1937. Citogenesis, I suspect. Randy Savage had the wrong name the same way for a spell. But the source for 83 likely just Googled him when WP said 1938, so it's a draw, weak support still. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Afghanistan earthquake

ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – 26 deaths and the extent of destruction is easily notable even if the magnitude is smaller than 6.0 Mw. Haven't had an earthquake ITN since that Oct 5.9 in Pakistan which also resulted in a similar extent of damage and casualties. --Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 21:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Afghanistan has earthquakes like some places have rain. Not saying this death and destruction is insignificant. But by Afghan, earthquake and Afghan earthquake standards, it lacks oomph. It was also two earthquakes. Hard to know if the stronger was deadlier. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I had the same reasoning when opposing this earthquake some time ago.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I remember. Read it a day or so too late to help, felt kinda bad for having "better" things to do, sorry for your loss. Don't delay, act today, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – A bit thin. Doesn't appear to have been very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is slightly short but covers the essentials and is well-cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It treats a pair of earthquakes as a single earthquake, before and after acknowledging the weaker one happened. Is that fundamentally encyclopedic? I think not. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well referenced and sufficient. Topic is being covered by news sources. --Jayron32 12:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a mistake while writing this blurb, can an admin update the main page? ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done No more Qadis on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 00:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rasheed Naz

Ainty Painty (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Stub – 190 words of text. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready per Sca. Additionally, the non text sections are completely unreferenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still a stub with filmography incomplete and unreferenced. Very much under-developed as a wikiarticle. --PFHLai (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Fuel truck explosion in Abu Dhabi

January 16

---

(Posted) RD: Richard J. Ferris

Nominator's comments: Former United Airlines CEO. Article seems to be new. Currently a stub. I will work on it. Someone might need to 'patrol' the article as appropriate. Edits done. Rater.js says article is a B-class bio, but, I think it is a solid C-class biography. Meets expectations for homepage / RD. Unrelated, can someone help me create a disambiguation page? There are three Richard Ferris bios and I think a nice disambiguation page will be good. Ktin (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is sufficiently sourced and covers significant points of the subject's life. Note that he left before the "United Breaks Guitars" era. Joofjoof (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta

Nominator's comments: Ousted president of Mali. Article is orange-tagged and needs some work. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Every paragraph looks sourced now, orange tag gone. Brandmeister^talk 21:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shinji Mizushima

Nominator's comments: Japanese manga artist, known for baseball manga Abu-san and Dokaben. According to the Nikkan Sports, in 2019 and 2020 he was one of candidates for Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame balloting (but not elected). He died on January 10, but his death announced on January 17 (JST). --133.232.197.102 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Too much unreferenced materials at this point. Please add more footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Charles McGee (Tuskegee Airman)

Nominator's comments: Purposely leaving the pipe in the header so you see he was one of the last Tuskegee Airmen. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is rated B-class and looks fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No major issues. [Memory eternal.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks to be in good shape. AviationFreak💬 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. BD2412 T 04:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Randy Kryn (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would suggest that the title of the article is not consistent with how disambiguation should be made. It's POV-ish in that the more concise title is just "(pilot)". --Masem (t) 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to have been moved to current title in 2020 per Talk:Charles_McGee_(Tuskegee_Airman)#Title_of_article.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I think that "Charles McGee (Tuskegee Airman)" is okay because that is part of the notability. Peaceray (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting salute Well done, history-maker. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Paul Myners

ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Quite Ready Article is not in dreadful shape. But there are a handful of cites needed before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The Public service and philanthropy section has much unref'd materials. Much of the After government section looks like WP:proseline. This wikibio also have a handful of {cn} tags that should be addressed. --PFHLai (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Stale. – Sca (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 15

---

(Posted) RD: Jean-Claude Lord

Bloom6132 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is solid and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ed Cheff

Nominator's comments: Short, but should be complete – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Bare but meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marlon Bundo

Nominator's comments: former bunny of the united states. announcement made on this date, though exact date of death appears unclear. article appears to be in decent shape. dying (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, article looks good and is fully cited. feminist (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ready. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is good. Condolences to Wesley. Davey2116 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But I guess not a Thatcher or Mandela rabbit, so no bunny blurb. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• PP Comment It's rather sad when we have a much better article about a pet rabbit than a recently deceased former Prime Minister of Japan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear... I dare not post a 300-word start-class wikibio next to it. --PFHLai (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • People who read the English Wikipedia would likely be more interested in Mike Pence's pet rabbit (a topic which has remained in the English-speaking public's consciousness) than a former Japanese prime minister who served a little more than two years around the end of the Cold War. For that matter, the jawiki article for Marlon Bundo (ja:マーロン・ブンド) looks nice as well, a sign of Bundo's international impact. feminist (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis

RD: Joe B. Hall

Nominator's comments: Currently orange-tagged for citations; I'll be working on this shortly. PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Primarily sourcing issues, but might be a bit sparse too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In need of footnotes for the many championships and the statue. The table in the Head coaching record section looks incomplete; please add refs there, too. --PFHLai (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alexa McDonough

Nominator's comments: Died 15th, announced on same day. —Hcoder3104 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait: Promising article but multiple citations are still needed. Flibirigit (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Flibirigit: done – all "citation needed" tags now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready per Flibirigit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ad Orientem I am not available to fix the citations. Hcoder3104 (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ad Orientem: all "citation needed" tags have now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support everything appears referenced now. NorthernFalcon (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per above. Ornithoptera (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, article has no more maintenance tags and now meets citation requirements. Flibirigit (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Much improved. Well done on referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article in great condition. Good job. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga

Nominator's comments: Blurp per Current Events. The Capitólio rockfall article wasn't in a better state when it was posted either, and this event has arguably more global significance, so I think it's only fair. Are GIFs acceptable for ITN items? jonas (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ongoing I was posting a nomination too but Jonas got there first. The volcano has been erupting since 20 Dec so this is the latest in a series of events and there may be more to come. Ongoing may therefore be sensible as with the other recent volcanic eruptions which lasted for weeks. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb and/or ongoing. The satellite image is especially interesting content. The target article seems sufficient. Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have any information on deaths or financial impact? I agree the article is good, but what it is the significance? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No immediate deaths (the island is unhabited) but there are tsunami warnings out at the present. --Masem (t) 13:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In the absence of reported mortality, Ongoing seems a logical choice for now. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Somewhat underwhelming video here. - Sca (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article says communications are down. Jehochman ^Talk 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Jehochman Nyanardsan (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tsunami warning has been issued for the US West Coast. Looks like a powerful enough tsunami for it to be at least a major event, even in the (hopeful) case that casualties are limited or none. Juxlos (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Impact spans to U.S. and Canada. Article sufficiently sourced.—Bagumba (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support regardless of ultimate death count. Top news story currently, the entire Pacific Ocean is on red alert. Large amounts of damage is inevitable. Mlb96 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's clearly speculation. Please see below. – Sca (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait! – AP dispatch of 16:30 relates "no immediate reports of injuries" in Tonga and "no reported damage and only minor flooding" in Hawaii. Also, wave height at Monterey, Calif., put at only 8 inches (20 cm). Prudence dictates reserving judgment until this apparently weak tsunami's effects known. – Sca (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Our own article, under subhead Impact, says: "No information is yet available on the extent of damage and casualties from Tonga due to communication issues." ITN promotion of such a sketchy article would be premature. – Sca (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just for posterity, full quotation from the AP article: "There were no immediate reports of injuries or on the extent of the damage because all internet connectivity with Tonga was lost at about 6:40 p.m. local time, said Doug Madory, director of internet analysis for the network intelligence firm Kentik." Prism55 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Volcanoes erupt all the time. If this one is substantially larger (it appears that we are giving in a VEI 5 without citation), or it causes death/destruction it could be posted. But I'm seeing nothing that specifically indicates this is significant. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Though ITN is obsessed with WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, this is already unprecedented, even if (hopefully) the damage is minimal. She said the advisory was “fairly uncommon” because it was due to a volcanic eruption and not an underwater earthquake, and because it extended to the entire West Coast.[66].—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So far, this (continuing?) geologic/marine event appears to lack general significance or major impact. Ergo, wait. – Sca (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I moved the article and then saw it was in ITN/C. Will this break anything? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taken care of. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't really know the ropes around here but I will give a Weak support, as it is definitely making plenty of news right now. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - making headline news world wide. Mjroots (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So is Novak Djokovic. – Sca (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support even if this ends up being a nothingburger. This is making front page news across the world including CBC News in Canada, NPR in the United States, The Japan Times, BBC in the UK, Al Jazeera in Qatar/Middle East. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN is not a news ticker. – Sca (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait I support on importance - this probably should be ITNR, but isn't. The issue is that I haven't seen a metric for how large the eruption was, or an assessment of the impact on the ground in Tonga. Most of the article is about the tsunami (and the tsunami was barely an event at all). Presumably satellite internet in Tonga will be working in the morning and we will get some sense of the situation on the ground. Also there will presumably be a better sense of the size of the eruption. User:力 (powera, π, ν)
• Support - How much news do we end up posting from Tonga? And should we not concern ourselves with diversity of topics? A butcher's bill need not be an indication of newsworthiness.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support [Ongoing] Compares well in impact and notability to most disasters posted on ITN. Lacking known deaths/damage doesn't help the case for such an event, but also doesn't disqualify it. EDIT: modified support for ongoing due to continued eruptions and impacts. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another reason to wait. – Sca (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It can always be shifted to Ongoing once there's consensus for that. By the time it's cleared for an ongoing tab, it could be approaching stale - if not be completely stale. I don't see the point of sitting on a nomination if it meets criteria now, just in case it goes on longer than anticipated. Canadianerk (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Consensus in favor of posting, with some suggesting to wait. This is a significant geologic event with global news coverage and impact (even if it doesn't reach WP:MINIMUMDEATHS). It could be months before the full-scale of the eruption is seen, as major volcanic events can have an impact on global climate. The magnitude of the eruption (Volcanic Explosivity Index) is undetermined so a recurrence interval is not available as of yet. Pressure fluctuations are being observed halfway across the globe (with seismographsmeasuring the shockwave in the Cascade Volcanoes), which is not a frequent occurrence as far as I'm aware. A blurb is most appropriate over ongoing given the main event happened within the last day. Ongoing can be discussed down the road when this item rolls off the ticker. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, tsunamis were recorded in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea (albeit very minor) from the sheer force of the shockwave and/or pressure fluctuations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment – Sunday coverage includes: "Tsunami threat over after huge Pacific volcano eruption" (BBC), "Pacific tsunami threat recedes as volcano ash cloud covers Tonga" (Guardian), "Surging waters sank at least one boat in Ventura (Calif.) Harbor" (AP). As of 13:00, no casualties had been reported. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Another large eruption detected See here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 14

---

(Posted) RD: Alice von Hildebrand

Bloom6132 (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (527 words) and with enough footnotes, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is ready. It's great that we can have a woman with a great Catholic theological work on Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alsoriano97: Yes, indeed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Seabrook

2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A0C5:599C:4B84:672 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Popular gardening advisor, looks fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Lede starts "He wrote a gardening column in The Sun newspaper for over 40 years." but body of the article has no info about this. Spencer^T•C 05:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is now covered. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F9AB:D2E7:65C2:9600 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Edward Roberts (Canadian politician)

Bloom6132 (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is solid and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• More than long enough (900+ words) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Eleventh lieutenant governor, good stuff. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Fahy

Bloom6132 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Respectable article. Referencing is solid as is usually the case with Bloom6132's nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looking good for RD JW 1961 ^Talk 11:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ronald Stewart

Nominator's comments: First reported today (January 14); died on January 10 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Maria Aurora Couto

Nominator's comments: Indian author. Padma Shri awardee. Article requires good amount of work before it can be ready. Edits done. Article has shaped into a nice C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Toshiki Kaifu

Nominator's comments: Japanese Prime Minister. He died on 9 January, but his death was only announced on 14 January. Fulmard (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed some of unreferenced material and added two cn tags. The text reads solid otherwise. --Tone 09:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready For a change referencing is not the issue. The article is just really subpar for a former prime minister of one of the world's major countries and needs expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when ready Article is really shorter than it should be. One CN tag, but that can be fixed along with expanding it This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The prose lacks info (and refs) on many of the subject's political office and honorary titles as shown in the infobox and the succession boxes on the wikipage. Please expand the coverage. --PFHLai (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Ukraine cyberattack

Nominator's comments: Relatively well-documented and very recent attack with potential future ramifications. The article was fully up to date by the 17th. Toadspike (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 13

---

RD: Junior Siavii

ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are about 8 {cn} tags in this 529-word wikibio. Please add more footnotes and refs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jean-Jacques Beineix

Nominator's comments: French film director Thriley (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Citations have been added. Thriley (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Citations for a few of his awards are missing. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 05:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Herbert Achternbusch

Nominator's comments: Bavarian film director, writer and painter. Death announced at this date. Grimes2 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Solid article and well referenced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Terry Teachout

Nominator's comments: American author, critic, biographer, playwright, stage director, and librettist Thriley (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Good depth of coverage, but Terry_Teachout#Other_work needs references. Pretty close to being ready. Spencer^T•C 16:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spencer and Ad Orientem: - Fixed the references and the orange box. Feel free to let me know if you'd want any additional edits. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 01:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Raslan conviction

Nominator's comments: : Arguments in favour of the nomination: first court ruling worldwide explicitly ruling that the government of Syria commits torture and mass killings of civilians. The ruling has a high impact well beyond the case of the person convicted today. Arguments against the nomination: the defence lawyers can still appeal the conviction and the article on Anwar Raslan needs to be expanded. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 22:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on article quality. Article is far too short. Will reconsider upon expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Article strikes me as being a little too "preachy", i.e. too eager to push a particular POV. Claims have been over-egged in furtherance of this. The Syrian government was not on trial and the "first" claims are either narrowly defined or seemingly in contradiction to the Al-Gharib case referred to in the references. 3142 (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Target article is an UNDUE and wholly NPOV BLP.2001:708:20:1300:0:0:0:1650 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose BLP issues- he has a right to appeal the verdict, and the article is question is wholly focused on this trial, and so is not NPOV. Also, numbers in article don't match the blurb, ALT1 is POV and not in the article, and the article needs more sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the other issues aside, we usually post convictions and do not wait for all appeals to be exhausted(which can take years and even decades). If a conviction is overturned, that can be posted. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there are no BLP issues when RS's supply the information. The last sentence here is whistling in the wind: Bill Cosby's overturned conviction was not posted. I doubt any would be, unless ITN policy on this is locked in place. 96.5.122.4 (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are however BLP violations on an article when it's written exclusively about this, with a massive focus on the conviction, and no other content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosby's should have been posted. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. But unless such conviction status updates are locked in as ITN policy, it will not happen. 96.5.122.4 (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ... in principle, pending cleanup or separate article. A significant event and precedent. Very widely covered on Thursday; some follow-ups today. [67] [68] – Sca (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, This is the first of its kind, opening a new session in the international judiciary.Alex-h (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 12

---

(Posted) RD: Adi Andojo Soetjipto

Nominator's comments: Former associate justice. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks solid. Good job on referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Non-English refs AGF'd. --PFHLai (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Stephen H. Sachs

Bloom6132 (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Any info about what he did in his role as Attorney General, which seems to be his most notable political position? Spencer^T•C 06:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Spencer: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Adequate depth, referenced. Spencer^T•C 16:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ronnie Spector

Nominator's comments: American singer who formed the girl group The Ronettes JosHeartTransplant (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready Referencing is very poor and will require some work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too much unsourced content, and this does not really comply with WP:BLPSOURCES. Ritchie333^(talk)(cont) 23:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ritchie333: What's wrong with New York Daily News? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it's generally seen as reliable and as this is a report of a court proceeding I can't see the issue. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• As soon as sourcing issues are resolved, Strong Support. Highly influential and significant singer, and many of the songs by The Ronettes remain widely recognised to this day. TheScrubby (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only criteria for a biographical article to be posted at RD is article quality. So, "support when issues resolved" is kinda redundant. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stats FYI, this was the top read article yesterday. The readership was 465K and so not in the same league as Betty White, who is still in the charts after two weeks. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Discography still unreferenced. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done References added to Discography section too. Alexcalamaro (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article looks in good shape. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I just got rid of the last of the cn tags, and will continue to watch this article and provide sources as needed. It looks to me to be in pretty good shape right now. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While we wait for a spot to open up on the RD line, can we have a non-primary source for the solo singles, please. And preferably not on the subject header, please. The footnotes shows up in the table of contents and looks rather odd there. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point, although a quick check at discogs and 45Cat (as usual) reveals they are all genuine. I'm not sure why any of her official discography should really be doubted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that was tagged. It's a minor thing that should not hold up this nom, but would be nice if it can be resolved before the link goes on MainPage. (Sorry, I have no clue what 45CAT means, but it's amusing to see it next to DiscOGs.) --PFHLai (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lol. Consider yourself catted. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see... thanks for the link. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't trust it, as it's not WP:RS (... it's written by record experts). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, well,... I'll leave things the way they are. BTW, thanks for fixing the table of contents. --PFHLai (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shebby Singh

Nominator's comments: Malaysian soccer player, coach, and sports broadcaster. Article requires some work. I will get to it later tonight if no one gets to it earlier. Ktin (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Long enough (600+ words), but needs more refs (4 {cn} tags). Would be nice if "He won every domestic honour, including the Malaysia Cup, Malaysian FA Cup and League Championship." can be expanded to include some details on what he did to earn all these honours. --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Luis Castañeda

Nominator's comments: Former Mayor of Lima. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready Referencing is quite poor and will need some work before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: His bio in Spanish Wikipedia has three times as many refs. Perhaps someone who knows the language can look into porting some of the refs from ES to EN, please? --PFHLai (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 11

---

(Posted) RD: Clyde Bellecourt

Nominator's comments: Most influential leader for rights of Native Americans (the rest were already dead). Needs a lot of updating -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I expect we'd need his autobiography to source much of this bio. No Google or Amazon preview exists so I'm bowing out. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making some progress as more sources are appearing. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Not perfect but C-class biography now. Copy of his autobiography found at Johns Hopkins. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Bellecourt and AIM co-founder Dennis Banks (d. 2017) were very widely known in their day. Our Bellecourt article has been updated. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready Referencing needs a lot of work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the NFL and the Washington football team are still not ready. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, yes, Ready, please post. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is now well sourced and comprehensive. KittenKlub (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is someone available to post this, then? Thanks. – Sca (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Whither free image? Are we sure there are no freely-licensed images of him on Flickr, etc.? Joofjoof (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joofjoof, article is not proposed for a blurb so why are you asking here instead of on the article talk page? Flickr has two eligible images, but both are so poor as to be disfigurements. What is "etc."? Search was made of the Library of Congress photo library which has nothing. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joofjoof, thank you for the nudge. When I pulled the crop back from his face to full length we got a pretty unmistakable talking (?) stick. Can't say I like the photo but it is free and beggars can't be choosers. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 23:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gary Waldhorn

Nominator's comments: British actor; needs updating and citations adding 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E462:BF8E:70DD:6A60 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose table needs referencing This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Orbitalbuzzsaw: done – table all sourced now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written and sourced now. RIP Councillor David Horton. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query Who will chair the Dibley parish Church meetings now? Chrisclear (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is it acceptable to use FreeBMD for his son's name and birth year? WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns and all that. Joofjoof (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Joofjoof: done – removed birth year (left name per WP:BLPNAME) and replaced FreeBMD with existing source. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that is better. Support now. Joofjoof (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2022 College Football Championship

(Posted) RD: Ernest Shonekan

Nominator's comments: Former (interim) head of Nigerian Government – Ammarpad (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose some lines and paras are unsourced. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – citations have been added. Princess of Ara 19:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Referencing is adequate but I am not wowed by the overall length and quality of an article about a former head of state. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of European Parliament

Nominator's comments: A RD nom has been made however no ITN nom, I think an ITN nom of mentioning Roberta becoming the first Maltese president of the European parliament and the mention of David Sassoli is needed and is a suitable nomination. Both articles are suitable for a news nom. BastianMAT (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment target article needs to be updated for this change of leader. And lots of the article needs sourcing too e.g. none of the presidents actually have sources for them (despite the table having a column for references). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be better now for all articles, I def think this is a very suitable nomination as its an important role, important death and notable background being the first from Malta. BastianMAT (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD only not too significant as death of the Queen Elizabeth II (morbid?), but still much worthly to be posted giving she was the first EP president from Malta but her notability is not so significant as prominent head of government/state. 125.167.57.110 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The comparison you make with Elizabeth II doesn't make much sense, to tell the truth. Sassoli's death is not the main subject of this nomination, and it shouldn't be. The debate here is whether the nomination of a new EP president should be on the Main Page. If it succeeds, it should obviously mention the death of the one who has been president until today, as it's the reason for the change in the leadership of this institution. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions Number 1: is the President of the European Parliament a "head of government"? List of current heads of state and government#Sui generis entities lists the heads of the EU as the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission. Number 2: do we usually post changes where the person taking charge is in an acting role? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. No.
  2. Not all the time. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the President of the European Commission is the key person in the EU (we posted Ursula von der Leyen election in 2019 but not Sassoli), besides, Metsola's article is not in shape to post at the moment. --Tone 16:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the main story here would be that Sassoli died in office. But it was posted as RD already. --Tone 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose this doesn't seem like a very prominent role (even though it's inherently international); in fact it looks more ceremonial than anything. Banedon (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the "three presidencies" of the European Union is ceremonial in nature. Perhaps in EP president’s international activities, but its function is the same as that of any Speaker of any legislative assembly. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The president of the parliament is the least influential of the three EU offices called 'president', behind the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission. Their role is equivalent to the Speaker of a national parliament. None of the recent holders of this office have attracted public attention. Being the first Maltese incumbent isn't particular significant either. Modest Genius ^talk 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose now people have cleared up for me that it's not the most important EU role. We wouldn't post the change of Speaker in the US or UK, so don't see why we should post this, as this EU role seem to be at a similar level to a speaker. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ahmet Yılmaz Çalık

Nominator's comments: Turkish national team and Konyaspor player, 27 years old, died in a tragic car crash. Article needs some work. BastianMAT (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With only 888 characters (154 words) of readable prose, this stub needs to be expanded quite a bit before it can qualify for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready per PFHLai. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First pig to human heart transplant

Nominator's comments: This is described as a groundbreaking breakthrough. There are some potential pictures on Commons. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are they bloody? We don't need that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the submission. Which is the better target article? I don’t see either article being updated yet. We need a substantial update for this to be considered. The altblurb I supplied may be helpful if this progresses. Jehochman^Talk 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would assume the xenotransplantation article (ALT1) would be appropriate for this scenario. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) RFZYNSPY updated heart transplantation and started an article about the patient. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the patient article David Bennett Sr. isn't deleted for WP:BLP1E it might go nominated by the process at WP:DYKON. Xenotransplant has not been updated, and the update in heart transplant may not be sufficient. If this event is significant, it should be easy to find in those articles. Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once some cn tags and some unsourced lines in both linked articles are fixed. A true milestone. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Only time will tell how significant this is, the first human-human heart transplants didn't exactly go well, to the point the ethics of continuing were questioned. If he lives for ten years I'm willing to overlook the criminal language redundancy (ground-breaking breakthrough), but not after a few days. This isn't a Louise Brown style moment with a natural point of success, nor the first xenotransplantation. 3142 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, subject to article quality. I think xenotransplantation would be the natural target article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per 3142. DYK. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Both per 3142 and because it’s unlikely to make the Top 25 report, as the nominator is so keen on trying to skew ITN towards the most read articles. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E462:BF8E:70DD:6A60 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 3142 as not the first xenotransplating operation. --Masem (t) 02:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose for lack of event or biography article, but an interesting chapter in medical history, thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose I'd support this but we lack a article on the event; the ones available are tangential. Banedon (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Banedon. No article, no blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, We have to wait and see what the results will be. Alex-h (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Banedon. We generally don't post events that don't have their own article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support once tags are resolved; this is noteworthy, rare medical news. While it's unusual to post an event that does not have it's own target article, I think xenotransplantation works as a target article for this event. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ... in principle as a significant event. Very widely covered on Thursday; some follow-ups today. [71] [72] – Sca (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: David Sassoli

Nominator's comments: incumbent president of the european parliament. died of a "serious complication due to a dysfunction of the immune system". article needs some work. dying (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle. Article looks okay, still needs a bit work, important person and a tragic death. BastianMAT (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Orange-tagging his article. Many unsourced paragraphs and lines. And I think his two years as president of the European Parliament should have deeper coverage. Far from ready, IMO. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources have been added where missing. --Yakme (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good job! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything seems to be sourced now. --Vacant0 (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks fine for RD now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now looks good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This is a heavily significant event and should be included. The article is additionally well written.Dunutubble (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 15:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jules Wright (politician)

Nominator's comments: Since you've repeatedly shown me that any obscure subject is fine so long as the article is formatted a certain way and happens to have a bunch of citations, I'll go ahead and nominate this. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Covers what he was notable for. Any info for what Wright was up to after 1984? (Presume he withdrew from political life). Spencer^T•C 05:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Notability is not an issue at all. Long enough (544 words) and has enough footnotes in expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. Spencer, the info you asked about may be at the end of the "Early life and private sector" section. --PFHLai (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Thanks PFHLai, I missed that. Spencer^T•C 05:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

---

(Posted) RD: Khan Jamal

Bloom6132 (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets minimum standards for depth, referenced. Spencer^T•C 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ian Greenberg

Bloom6132 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Deon Lendore

Nominator's comments: Needs some text expansion, as currently a stub Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment expanded to start class, which I think is just about good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chang'e 5's detection of water on moon

Nominator's comments: As noted by the news stories on this, this is the first on-site detection of evidence of water (the presence of hydroxyl molecules) on the moon. There have been prior from-orbit spectra detection of likely water, but this is from the samples that Chang'e-5 brought back to earth to study. Masem (t) 01:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Comment* Might not a better target article be Lunar water as that’s really the more newsworthy part of it rather than the probe that detected it? ~ 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:ED31:A490:2B71:29B5 (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't think there was a real chance that the "likely water" would turn out not to be water, in which case this is a minor advance. Banedon (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Firstly, the blurb is factually incorrect, this detection was not in the samples brought back to Earth, but using a spectrometer on the lander. Water has been found in numerous lunar samples returned to Earth, but by the Apollo and Luna missions in the 1970s. There are also numerous spectroscopic observations of water in lunar craters taken from orbit e.g. by Chandrayaan-1. Detecting it using a similar instrument on a lander is both expected and unexciting. Modest Genius ^talk 13:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Taskeen Manerwal

Ainty Painty (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• With 1999 characters of readable prose, this wikibio is a bit short but its length is still passable (Start-class). There seems to be enough footnotes. AGF'd all non-English refs. This wikibio is READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short but adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Needs a couple more sentences about his poetry. I see from the article that he wrote poetry about romance, but that's about it. Spencer^T•C 19:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spencer: There are 364 words of readable prose now. Wanna take another look, please? --PFHLai (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 01:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Falkenburg

Nominator's comments: First reported today (January 10); died on January 6 (i.e. provable gap of at least two days). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks pretty good. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Don Maynard

– Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good article, well-referenced, NFL legend. The Kip (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article is in good shape. I've added information about the first three references, which were just titled "Archived copy" - something I think we should be looking out to fix before promoting to the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lead needs to highlight some of his major accomplishments.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Bagumba, already done. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 06:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Pulled) RD: Robert Durst

Nominator's comments: Past few weeks have been a famous name killer. Article looks solid. Davey2116 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, ticks the boxes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Article looks good. Definitely notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are two CN tags near the bottom, but neither are of sufficient importance to hold up posting. Overall article quality is solid. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good state. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- the wub "?!" 20:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Adding new cn tags. The fact that it was posted in less than an hour without having solved the tags that were already there and with several lines without source was, without a doubt, reckless. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the extra diligence. At time of posting the only CN tags were in the "In popular culture" section, plus two "failed verification" tags elsewhere that I resolved. I'm fairly new to helping with ITN though, so won't object if any other admins think this needs to be pulled. the wub"?!" 20:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  More than 10 CN tags now. Please pull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulled for now, as there are plenty of unreferenced statements. Stephen 22:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are still about 10 {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: James Mtume

ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please remove me as an updater, all I did was fix the broken infobox and remove a low quality source, I was not involved with any of the content on the page. In terms of this RD candidate, I am currently Neutral, the page is nowhere near ready for RD, especially when it comes to references. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto here. My edits were very minor, and the article does need more work. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Citations are missing (and so tagged) at a few spots in the prose. And there are dozens of footnote-free bullet-points from the Discography section and onwards. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are now no more {cn} tags in the prose, but the Discography section has remained unsourced. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

---

(Posted) RD: Maria Ewing

Nominator's comments: American opera singer. In decent shape. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can someone check the Ancestry.com reference? Article looks sufficiently sourced otherwise. Joofjoof (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article picture (a yearbook photo) is from Ancestry.com. Joofjoof (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Bob Saget

JosHeartTransplant (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Famous actor, definitely reaches RD requirement User:Hcoder3104 (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "RD requirement" is a recent death in the news, which he meets, and an article of decent quality for the mainpage, which he currently does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now orange tagged for citations. No personal life section to discuss his two marriages? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a short personal life section. Please check out the citations. Mooonswimmer 16:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready per Muboshgu. Referencing in particular needs work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I'm just glad Betty White and Sidney Poitier's articles were in better shape than Bob Saget's. That is an important milestone for en.wiki. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, Full House is not particularly funny. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article looks fine now jonas (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I originally came here for the express purpose of supporting this, but unfortunately, the article just doesn't look ready. The section '2001–2022' is entirely WP:PROSELINE, and the 'Personal life' section, while a good effort in such a short time, just feels somewhat empty, likely due to Saget's cultural relevance being at its strongest in the era of print newspaper. In addition to e.g. Newspapers.com, I feel like there has to be some uncontroversial stuff in his autobiography, 'Dirty Daddy'. I went ahead and moved 'Charity work' into 'Personal life', and even then it's just heavily overshadowed by the 'Death' section. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article has been improved. While there's two cn tags (that I've seen) I don't think they should hold up the nomination. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few {cn} tags in the prose. Multiple items in the tables in the Filmography section are unreferenced; perhaps some footnotes in the prose may be re-used in these tables. --PFHLai (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CN tags you out for items that were already cited in either the prose or the tables. It’s disingenuous to call his HIMYM and Fuller House roles uncited. It feels like a deliberate attempt to make it look unready. Honestly I think the career section needs rebalancing. The post-AFV stuff covers 20 years while the section with AFV is considerably smaller covering 14 years--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"disingenuous"? It is not "a deliberate attempt to make it look unready," but a deliberate attempt to highlight missing items. It doesn't look ready without the footnotes in the right spots. --PFHLai (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support only if... - The article, especially the subsection of his career between 2001 until his death, is written like a very simplified summary rather than an article. Could be edited to make it much, much more readable. -PenangLion (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• support as of now, article has no maintenance tags, covers the subject adequately, and the concerns raised above have been resolved. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is still a citation needed tag next to the statement about Dirty Work (1998 film) to be resolved. Flibirigit (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Flibirigit: done – tag now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – It's been three days someone post it already. Hcoder3104 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are still a few {cn} tags in the tables in the Filmography section. --PFHLai (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PFHLai: done – all CN tags now addressed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Bloom. Posted. Apart from those 2 listed above, there may be more wikipedians deserving ITN credits, but I don't have time to go through the long edit history to check today. Sorry. --PFHLai (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PFHLai: Why was it removed? -Hcoder3104 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hcoder3104: a max. of 6 recent deaths are listed at any given time. After an item is featured for 24+ hours on the Main Page, it gets cycled off for a newer RD. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Bloom6132. Yes, Hcoder3104, that was what happened. It's not always 24h, though. Sometimes certain names get to stay on that RD line much longer when there are not enough new names ready to displace them. --PFHLai (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Bronx apartment fire

Nominator's comments: Major fire in New York City. Death toll growing, might be deadliest fire disaster in the city's recent history. Mooonswimmer 20:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support major fire disaster, should be mentioned on the front page. 2607:FEA8:E31F:FBC1:E8EA:A4B4:A991:C5B2 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- at 19 deaths, this fire is one of the worst in modern US history. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the merits. Oppose tying in a fire from four days ago in a completely different city that was not posted. Not sure The Bronx is recognized worldwide. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough -- I just figured that both could be combined in a single blurb, like we did when there were two mass shootings back-to-back in the US a few years back. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Also: The Bronx may not be recognized everywhere, but I'm sure New York City is. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed an alt blurb with just NYC. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bronx, oppose Philadelphia The article for the Philadelphia fire remains a stub, and in any case I don't think we should combine two events into a single blurb if the only connection between them is timing. Ionmars10 (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• WAIT. The stubby wikipage only has 1417 characters of readable prose. Obviously too short and not ready. --PFHLai (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. Both articles are far too short for posting on the main page. Will reconsider if/when they are expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait/Oppose Article will improve when more details emerge. Would favor alt 2, as specifying borough seems unnecessary and potentially confusing. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... for now. At 237 words of text at 23:30, article is a stub. – Sca (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NYC, Oppose Philadelphia the Philadelphia article is a stub and I’m not sure if coincidental timing merits including it if there isn’t sufficient coverage - but the NYC fire is a significant event which is all over the news. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose incorporating Philly story It is a completely unconnected event and far less eventful than the Bronx one. --Masem (t) 01:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a major disaster. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for Bronx, oppose for Phila - It is severe (as told by the government 'as the worst in NYK for decades'), but I have my personal doubts about it being a 'significant disaster' in the country (in relative, the severity of the fire at Osaka last month killed 26, a similar figure, and was deemed ITN-worthy) Is the death toll expected to rise? (PenangLion (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose on quality barely more than a stub article, needs more information. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I'm a strong oppose on the blurb including the Philadelphia one, as the two are not linked in any way. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We usually post fires with casualties but the article on this one is way too short and tells absolutely nothing about the investigation, reactions and immediate aftermath. I don't think that Grenfell Tower fire should be considered a standard, considering that it's really an excellent article, but there's definitely room for major improvement (note that even the 2017 Bronx apartment fire, which was not posted, has a much better article).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support first blurb. It's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Monday coverage says 32 people hospitalized, 13 in critical. Article still seems thin, with only 120 out of 325 words devoted to the fire itself. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite quality - It's unlikely we will know more about the disaster's causes and background until an investigation is launched, which could take weeks, and then months thereafter to reach a conclusion. That does not mitigate the disaster's scope and newsworthiness.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Major disaster, the article has enough information.Alex-h (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now for one of The Bronx blurbs (without Philadelphia). Article looks good enough now. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bronx fire posting - major disaster, looks like being the worst in the city since the Happy Land fire over 30 years ago. Article is long enough now.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting and I'm using "the Bronx" in the blurb, because it's recognizable enough. If you haven't seen A Bronx Tale, I recommend it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The death toll has been revised down to 17 (nine adults, eight children) per updates issued by city medical examiners earlier today. rawmustard (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Rawmustard, thanks for pointing that out. I've revised the blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

---

(Posted) RD: Andrew Jennings

Bloom6132 (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (546 words of readable prose) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 16:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Michael Parks (reporter)

Template:ITN candidate

• Comment Some tags are present. Article could benefit from more details, such as the context for his 1987 Pulitzer prize. Joofjoof (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Re lead expanded. I cannot extrapolate more than what is said in the source that verifies the statement tagged as vague, I'll let other reviewers decide the issue. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Capitólio rock collapse

Template:ITN candidate

• Comment Oppose – Quite a bit of coverage, but lacks general significance. – Sca (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support primarily based on the highly unusual nature of the event. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Rockfalls are commonplace. What's unusual about this one is that several tourists were killed by it. I don't think that makes it important enough. It's more suitable for DYK. Jim Michael (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Unusual. Tragic. And you just know that had this happened in America, it would have been posted within the hour of the nomaination 5.44.170.26 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, although this discussion and the article would be a lot longer had it happened in the US. Jim Michael (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or the UK. – Sca (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It probably wouldn't have been posted if it occurred in the US or the UK. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With just seven fatals, that's probably so. I was reacting, maybe excessively, to a faint sniff of anti-American bias. – Sca (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support -- it is receiving coverage because of how unlucky the victims were to be right underneath the rockfall, but I am not sure if that alone warrants a blurb. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Thank you for working on this article. Usually we post tragedies with higher numbers of casualties. This one is very marginal, but maybe it could be a WP:DYK. My reservation is that DYKs often have humorous hooks, but this article obviously is not for comedy. Jehochman ^Talk 02:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Unusual incident, but it doesn't feel ITN-worthy to me. The severity is limited (10 died), the disaster isn't a defining event in the country or region (a tragic disaster, but not an impactful one). It's more of a bizarre tragedy suited for DYK instead (like how previous contributors have noted). If the situation worsens however (like an increased death toll), I would give my support, though I still have my doubts. (PenangLion (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Take it to DYK. We are likely not getting a consensus to post but the article meets all the requirements for DYK. --Tone 08:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this would be suitable for DYK & its hook could be worded in a serious way. Jim Michael (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support the death toll is now 10, and it is being covered in news sources. Article is a decent quality. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still don't see broader significance. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Periodic reminder that significance is not a binary. 10 people may not meet WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, but a mass casualty rock slide is unusual, and the article is of good quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per GreatCaesarGhost. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm counting 6-3 in favor. Can an admin weigh in? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 19:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is fine. My vote was neutral but the casualty count increased since then, the article quality is good, and the photo is good quality. Jehochman ^Talk 14:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Template:Ping I suggest removing “at least”. All victims have been identified. ArionEstar (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Gore (physicist)

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Short but adequate. Good job on the referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ad Orientem. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- the wub "?!" 00:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lourdes Castro

Template:ITN candidate

• Weak Support Not wowed by the article's length but I think it is, barely, adequate. No other issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Bare but meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 19:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robert Hughes

Template:ITN candidate

• Not Quite Ready A few cites needed. Article length is sub-optimal for promotion on the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too short and more citations needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Current length at 2402 characters (396 words of readable prose) is okay, but there are still a few {cn} tags. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Hiranmay Sen Gupta

Template:ITN candidate

• Not Ready Article is a stub and requires expansion. That said, referencing is not bad for a change. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, article is not a stub, neither by tagging nor by classification. That said, I agree, as noted by me above, it is a tad short and can benefit from expansion. It is a start-class biography. Ktin (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose CV in prose format; only one sentence about research work. Does not meet 3 well-rounded paragraph minimum. Spencer^T•C 06:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand Template:U. Unfortunately, I have hit a wall on what I can find online. I can work on reading a few of his papers and summarizing them, but, I am wondering if that is a good approach. Let me know of your thoughts. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure if that would be considered WP:OR, as typically primary literature shouldn't be cited in articles, in favor of secondary or tertiary sources. Spencer^T•C 19:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Anyways, I think we might miss the boat on this one. Let me see what I can do. C'est la vie. Have a nice day. Ktin (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Unfortunately, this is the best I could get the article to. RIP. Life well lived. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention) Murree snowstorm

Template:ITN candidate

• "Incident" seems like an odd title. --Masem (t) 16:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. It's a stub. Will reconsider if/when article is adequately expanded. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait/Oppose as article is only a stub. Once it is at least start class, !vote will become a Support. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Dubious article but odd and noteworthy event This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Quite widely covered, considerable mortality, but basically a weather story. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - What makes this notable is the large number of people visiting Murree to see the snow, then many being stranded there when the snowfall increased, some dying as a result. It's not merely a run-of-the-mill weather event. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• WAIT. Not counting the bullet-points under "Reactions", there are only 181 words of readable prose on this stubby wikipage. Obviously, still too short and not ready. Not to mention the orange tags for {missing information} and the need for more sourcing. --PFHLai (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's significantly better now. Jim Michael (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WAIT, Article needs more information. Alex-h (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality we don't post stubs on the front page. Needs more information about the event/event background. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — I've just expanded the article substantially and while it still needs a lot of work I think it's acceptable enough quality for the front page now.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There are still reference errors. Significant and decently covered but it's a bit low on citations. Would give full support if more citations are added. -PenangLion (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still more recent than the RD of Sidney Poitiers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only objections to posting it are that the article isn't good enough, but it is now. Jim Michael (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 7 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) RD: Amanda Asay

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. RIP. Spencer^T•C 06:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eberhard Zeidler

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Adequate depth, fully referenced. Spencer^T•C 06:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Francisco Laína

Template:ITN candidate

• Support No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -- the wub "?!" 00:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: José Évrard

Template:ITN candidate

• Not Ready Article is a stub and poorly sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This stub has only 203 words of readable prose. Any more stuff to write about this guy, please? --PFHLai (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gerson da Cunha

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jack Dromey

Template:ITN candidate

• Not ready for the usual reasons. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are any remaining shortcomings, it would be very helpful if you could mark them. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added some sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any more? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support seems good to me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks ready to be posted. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lani Guinier

Template:ITN candidate

• Not Quite Ready Article is not bad but there are a couple of cites needed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Thoroughly referenced now and about as ready as we’re going to be I think! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is in great condition. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Sidney Poitier

Template:ITN candidate

• "Personally I pronounce it Harry Belafonte".Template:PbSupport blurb, nicely improved. SN54129 — Review here please :) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs a lot of sourcing help before ready. --Masem (t) 15:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready Needs some referencing work. Once ready Support blurb, Poitier was a giant in the entertainment industry and arguably the first black actor to make the Hollywood A list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the article does not give any indication he was a major force in Hollywood. I don't disagree with the assessment he was important, but the article lacks clear statements to this degree, and really should cover that if he was to get a blurb. --Masem (t) 16:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add, it does look like the long-form obits coming out should help establish this legacy. --Masem (t) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ping & Template:Ping I've added a legacy section. I'm still expanding it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb when ready One of the most important actors who has ever lived, and his death is big news. If you want to talk "transformative in their field", that's Sidney Poitier. I do agree with Masem above who noted that the article isn't there yet and doesn't quite state his importance in a sufficient manner. -- Kicking222 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality but support blurb in principle if fixed. The article is woefully undersourced, and fails to make clear his importance, which is not helped by the fact that all his awards and honours are listed in a separate page, with no summary on the article. Therefore, the awards and honours doesn't even mention that Template:Tq Which would be the basis for blurbing this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just being frequently awarded would not be sufficient for a blurb. Poitier has a lot more than just a distinguished acting career that makes him a reasonable blurb, but the fact he helped break the race barrier for Hollywood, which needs to be emphasized more. --Masem (t) 16:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb when ready Most important actor and certainly (without debate) top of his field. Article needs work though. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb as he was an iconic actor and a household name.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb a highly acclaimed and renowned actor, first African-American winner of a Oscar for best actor.--TheDutchViewer (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb absolutely. What he accomplished is most certainly a sui generis example of what RD blurbs were made for.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI, at 16:47 GMT, the U.K. should be well and truly awake to weigh in on this discussion. --WaltCip-(talk) 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb when the article is fully sourced; it currently contains several cn tags. He won many awards, including the top ones. This is the level of achievement that someone should be at in order to be blurbed - rather than beloved, popular, national treasure, very long career etc. which was used to post Betty White. About 99% of notable entertainers aren't blurb-worthy; Poitier is one of the few who is. Jim Michael (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, support RD Body of work and impact of career not especially notable. Framing of Oscar win by others here is more an achievement by Academy voters. Dr Fell (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an interesting stance to plant your flag on. WaltCip-(talk) 17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting because it's true. A black actor can (and has been known to) work his or her dramatic ass off, and still easily be snubbed year after year. The dead white voters made that change, for one year, 58 years ago. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, it might have something to do with the fact that this particular performance was so undeniably worthy of the Oscar. BD2412T 20:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, fair play to him. He met the annual Borgnine/Hackman standard someone always does. But how many here have seriously watched that 1963 movie this millenium? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb when ready; possibly worth mentioning in the blurb the fact that he was the first Black man to win the Best Actor Oscar. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb based on "transformative in their field", which in my opinion describes him well and sets him apart from other popular actors who would fall short of a blurb. Rhino131 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb: I haven't checked article quality, but Poitier is iconic and transformative enough to warrant a blurb. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb in principle If we are going to do the "transformative in their field" thing, this is a perfect candidate. (I'm aware it's not ready quality-wise yet).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping, Template:Ping: I've fixed the article in terms of sourcing. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb now that sourcing has been fixed with no more CN tags. I would also support mentioning his transformative effect on race in Hollywood within the blurb. Kafoxe (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb if ready. Breakthrough black actor should deserve a blurb. -Angga (formerly Angga1061) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For a blurb (which agree here is a reasonable case for a blurb), we really should expand "enough" of the "Awards" section to talk of his legacy in addition to other accomplishments. This is more than just being the first black actor to win an Oscar, but the fact he continued to fight for better representation in Hollywood after the fact and several other black actors were influenced by his success. --Masem (t) 18:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as RD as sourcing is there, but blurb discussion should continue. --Masem (t) 18:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the only remaining question is if the groundbreaking aspect is sufficiently covered. There is almost no opposition to a blurb(one oppose was for quality). 331dot (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Old Man Dies If this were 1964 and the blurb was about his Oscar, that'd be a story. Same as if this were 1983 and the blurb was about Atlas and Johnson's big step forward. But it's 2022, and the blurb is 100% about ripe old age. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is your argument that he was not transformative in his field? 331dot (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd have said so. It's that the blurb is about him dying at 94. Are you saying Rocky Johnson wasn't transformative? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but it wasn't clear to me that an issue with the blurb was being raised. When I wrote it, I used the standard format that we typically do here as a starting point, at least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 331dot (talk • contribs)

No worries, this is my standard objection to that automatically boring formula, alt's slightly better (still opposed, though). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering when IH would hit us with the old “old man dies” and I’m glad you once again do not disappoint. Calidum 23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support altblurb, with Academy Award win mentioned. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support +altblurb. Transformative figure. Shame we can't call him Sir Vigil Tibbs, but never mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Kudos to TDKR Chicago 101 for building out a legacy section to make this clear why we blurbed him. --Masem (t) 20:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb Transformative, should be updated. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support altblurb. BD2412 T 22:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose blurb I know my opposition is pretty useless but just wanted to point out that this is, yet again, sheer americano-centrism. With all due respect to the actor, the rest of the world couldn't care less.Varoon2542 (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big picture of this great actor on the frontpage of a major Czech daily newspaper I bought this Saturday. He was well known (and admired) even behind the Iron Curtain.Pavlor (talk) 09:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U If you would like to see more non-Americans posted, please nominate them. We can only consider what is nominated. Instead of suppressing stories from any particular country, which is reverse-bias, the way to see more postings is to work to get things you want to see posted, posted. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per instructions above: Template:Tq—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the weight of American items. Similarly, RD is almost entirely people from the Anglosphere. We currently have 2 blurbs and 6 RD names, all from the English-speaking world (if you include India). If Mel Brooks and Dick Van Dyke go soon, the entire news section will be about geriatric American entertainers. The 5 main Anglosphere nations (US, UK, Can, NZ, Aus) are only 6% of the world's people, we should try and make it so that they only get say, maximum 20% of the news. I could submit Brazilian and Chinese news all day but that's unlikely to make any real difference. Surely discussing the matter on this page is the first step towards fixing it?Sheila1988 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "americano-centrism" and "American items", Poitier was raised in the Bahamas by Bahamian parents, and was for ten years the Bahamian ambassador to Japan. His acting awards include six British Academy Film Awards nominations, and two German film festival awards. BD2412 T 02:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we had not posted Betty White (who is nowhere close to the same level of "major figure" as Poitier, I doubt we've people questioning this one. Hence why I think we need to be looking for higher bars to demonstrate "major figure" and avoid blurbs that are based on popularity or the like. --Masem (t) 02:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting because I have also seen it argued that the bar for a death blurb is too high, not too low.(I don't have it handy) 331dot (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U (ec) Please do nominate articles about events from China and Brazil, if they are indeed in the news. We can only consider what is nominated. That's the way to fix it. Artificially suppressing stories from any particular country is just reverse bias. RD postings are easier than a regular ITN posting; to post to RD all that is required is that the subject have an article that is updated with information on their death. We can't control when people die(obviously). Sometimes it just happens that we get a spat of deaths from a particular area. It also happens that people choose to improve articles about people that they notice have passed in the news- this we can control, and I invite you to do so. 331dot (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing/Update blurb 2022 Kazakh protests

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

• Comment Why not using WP:ERRORS to update the blurb, or at least becoming ongoing? 36.77.64.79 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The correct process for updating an incremental story such as this is to move it to ongoing.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to ongoing Template:Ping, Template:Ping Never done an ongoing nom before, better? BastianMAT (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Escalating story, definitive support--Roncanada-(talk) 15:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – A blurb is preferable until it rolls off the page. Not sure an ongoing discussion is necessary now. Can an admin just update the blurb and close this discussion? Obviously, if this situation is ongoing in a couple of days and new ITN items have pushed it off the Main Page, it should be added to ongoing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, this is the top blurb at the moment, with a picture, moreover! Leave it until it rolls of ITN, then consider ongoing (which should be easy if the story is still unfolding). On the other hand, if there is some major development, the blurb can be updated. (this is the standard process) --Tone 16:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not top anymore. Photo gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Pretty agree with Tone. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: "A request that the page title be changed to 2022 Kazakh uprising is under discussion." Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per Tone. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait support ongoing once it moves off the blurbs, although as that'll be in a week or so, may need to re-nominate for ongoing then Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Coverage Saturday includes 40 dead: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] – Sca (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the blurb needs an udate. Some "protests against a sharp increase in fuel prices" are one thing, but at least 40 dead, a huge influx of Russian troops and a "shoot-to-kill" policy are another. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Do something. Clearly, the current blurb is not suitable, and if we can't work out one that is I believe we should pull it now and add it to ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The blurb has been updated to "Template:Tq" for now. Please continue with the discussions on moving to "Ongoing". I don't see consensus to move there yet. --PFHLai (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment – Thanks to all who helped make the blurb correspond to several days of RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Template:Ping, confirmed by the government to be over 5800 detained now and over 160 killed.BastianMAT (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Toll update to 164 seems necessary. [79] 24 [80] [81] [82] – Sca (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Updated to "...at least 160 deaths and 5,800 arrests..." --PFHLai (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Should this go to "Ongoing" yet? --PFHLai (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC) I'm asking this because the wikipage's edit history seems less busy the past two days. So, I wonder if there is still interest in keeping it current, which is a requirement for staying on "Ongoing". --PFHLai (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article updates are starting to fall off; would prefer to reassess in two days with a new Ongoing nom. Spencer^T•C 06:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing as it's still ongoing, and has rolled off of the blurbs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

January 6

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 6 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) Zamfara massacres

Template:ITN candidate Support because it's certainly notable enough & the article easily good enough. A triple-digit death toll and thousands have been displaced. Jim Michael (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article meets quality requirements, and attacks appear notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – obvious notability, article is of sufficient quality. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: F. Sionil José

Template:ITN candidate

• Not ready Significant gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Much of the Works section remains unsourced. Some older links used as refs need updating or replacement. More refs, please. --PFHLai (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Peter Bogdanovich

Template:ITN candidate

• Not ready per nom. Referencing is quite poor and will require dramatic improvement before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb Influential filmmaker. As a director, was "A leading voice of ’70s Hollywood"^[1]. He is called "legendary"^[2][3][4], iconic^[5], "fearless genius of cinema"^[6] and "champion of cinema"^[7]. Also was known for his appearances as an actor. Numerous tributes accross film industry. He was also called legendary previously.^[8] Kirill C1 (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article is orange-tagged. Also, oppose blurb even if sourcing is fixed, as no evidence he's as transformative as the people who get blurbed on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scorcese and Coppola elaborate on his influence ^[9]. He " inspired a new generation of filmmakers, from Wes Anderson to Noah Baumbach" ^[10]. "Influential director"(The Times)^[11]. He was everyone in film industry, from director, auteur, writer, actor, to film critic and film scholar("has an equally storied legacy working as a film critic, historian and speaker", The Wrap)^[12]. "He served as a surrogate film professor for a generation"(THR)^[13] And he was nominated for Academy Awards. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arguably this is all pointing to being influential (which numerous directors and actors tend to be), but not transformative in establishing new approaches or the like. Plus the article is lacking any detailed explanation that would help to convince on this point. --Masem (t) 17:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am struggling to grasp the difference between "legendary", "influential" and transformative. He inspired filmmakers. Here^[14] is written more: "Peter Bogdanovich set the table for the Coen Brothers and Quentin Tarantino by pioneering an intriguing new approach to cinema: making movies about other movies". He was also "Pioneer Of New Hollywood"^[15], "a key figure in the New Hollywood Movement of 1970s".^[16] I think "pioneering" indicates that he was transformative figure. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, he was influential and so we can find many quotes to attest to that fact. But the same would hold for other film makers. Some objective evidence is provided by this list of the most critically acclaimed directors (https://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_top250directors.htm), and there he ranks "only" 180. So not in the same league as say Coppola, Hsiao-Hsien or Malick. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:DC76:45E9:14A5:FE83 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering that website is not reliable source and that lots of filmakers on the list died, I am not sure what this url brings to the discussion. "But the same would hold for other film makers." - not many filmmakers were nominated for Academy Award and were listed along with "Dennis Hopper, Arthur Penn, Robert Altman, Hal Ashby"^[17](see Peter Bogdanovich there). Kirill C1 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's a reliable and objective source, certainly more so than cherry-picked statements. On academy awards, yes, he was nominated once and only once. Like many other filmmakers. In fact, some of these other filmmakers even WON the academy award ;-) And btw, the article you cite emphasizes six filmmakers as key filmmakers. Guess what - Bogdanovich is not one of them, and is merely mentioned as being part of a broader wave of filmmakers. 2A02:8109:9C80:2054:DC76:45E9:14A5:FE83 (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • A website named theyshootpictures.com which has 14 urls in Wikipedian articles is more reliable than The Guardian, Wrap, THR, Variety. The director is called legendary. See the full quote"Legendary director Peter Bogdanovich, who came to prominence amid the Hollywood Renaissance of the '70s, has died at the age of 82. He leaves behind an astonishing film legacy, with the likes of Paper Moon, Daisy Miller, and his Oscar-nominated hit The Last Picture Show having an immeasurable imprint on Hollywood history." And more:"...there's no doubt that Bogdanovich will be remembered as one of New Hollywood's most prominent pioneers...The passing of Bogdanovich feels like an epochal moment: one of the greats of Hollywood's most shining era, gone at a time which has never been more uncertain."^[18]"An icon of “New Hollywood” of the 1960s and 1970s".^[19] He was nominated for two Oscars, won BAFTA, Grammy, won at Venice Film Festival and San Sebastián International Film Festival, and was nominated for Palme d'Or and Golden Berlin Bear. So he had an illustrious career. Kirill C1 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Come on, we seem to be dropping the ball a bit here. Blurbing is rare, not the norm, and is only reserved for truly transformative and unique figures. — Amakuru (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the unique and extraordinary role Bogdanovich played"^[20]. I would certainly describe writer-director who clearly had a reputation of auteur but also appeared on top-rated shows such as Sopranos, Simpsons and Good Wife and was also journalist and film scholar, inspiring many filmmakers^[21] as unique. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Old man dies, no blurb Yeah I don't see why he warrants a blurb. Was not "transformative" at all in his field. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 18:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Oh come on, this is getting a bit silly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• OMD As silly for a white guy who made not-exactly-popular-but-familiar titles as it is for a black guy or Antonio Inoki. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb as nominator. It's probably self-evident since I didn't nominate it as such, but to make it clear. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's all forget about blurbing and focus the discussion here on article quality and readiness for use on MainPage. There are quite a few paragraphs with zero footnotes. There is an orange tag at the top of the wikipage asking for better sourcing. Can we have more refs, please? --PFHLai (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I added refs, there are 120 of them now. I do not know about scholarly commentaries section, maybe it should be deleted. If anyone would add refs, it would be great. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready. I think it is ready to be posted. Around 180 refs now. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Let's hope an admin notices this in time. Ping PFHLai as they made the request for more refs.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Pawnkingthree & Kirill C1. It's fine. I can't find the footnote-free paragraphs anymore. --PFHLai (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Looks sufficient to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does he really belong at the beginning of all RDs? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U, we changed it from listing by date of death to date of posting, because otherwise Bogdanovich would be on and off in the blink of an eye. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 5 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) RD: Neil Nongkynrih

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose Several gaps in referencing and the article has a rather promotional tone to it. Needs some work. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Much improved. Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are still 2 {cn} tags. And, some of the more flowery language needs to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic tone. --PFHLai (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Re Template:Cn tags have been filled. I have made edits across the article to improve the tone. Streamlined sections as well. Reasonable C-class biography. Please have a look and let me know if you want any additional edits. Thanks for checking. Ktin (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Ktin, for the new footnotes and the revisions. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. I wonder if Ad Orientem would like a second look at this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lawrence Brooks

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Short article but sufficient for RD, pretty well sourced JW 1961 ^Talk 22:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short but adequate. No major issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Short and clean RD. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. RIP! Sad to see him go. Short article but sufficient for RD. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kim Mi-soo

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose Article is a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose article is too short, and violates fair image usage, as we shouldn't have two fair use images on the article (doing so violates fair use, thus the article's images are a copyright violation). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak support. Everything is referenced (indeed overly so in a couple of cases), and there are no images so that seems resolved. However it is short and would significantly benefit from expansion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Events described in future tense (funeral) have already happened. Updating is needed. Expansion there may help make the article a bit longer. Currently with 1737 characters (294 words) of readable prose, not much additional text is needed to make it a passable non-stub. --PFHLai (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Saleh Al-Luhaidan

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose on Quality. For a top Saudi scholar, the article is quite short, and the only sources are those reporting his death. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article is a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Though a bit short with 1919 characters (337 words) of readable prose, this non-stub has a passable length to qualify. Need more footnotes, though. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sindhutai Sapkal

Template:ITN candidate

• Support. Article looks good and well sourced. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice, well-sourced article. AryKun (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per both the above JW 1961 ^Talk 22:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 4 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) RD: William M. Ellinghaus

Template:ITN candidate

• Support. Article is referenced and seems minimally comprehensive. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Long enough (500+ words) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Max Fordham

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose. Still large gaps in the referencing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing to lack refs and footnotes in too many paragraphs. Please add more refs. --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tommy Matchick

Template:ITN candidate

• Support - Just one sentence needs sourcing or removing - in the Personal life section "They also adopted a daughter, Amanda" JW 1961 ^Talk 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and Comment. Sentence has been removed. Looks good, sad death of a player from my favorite team. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marking as Ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Kazakh protests

Template:ITN candidate

• Support, will support blurb as well, since state of emergency until 19 January has been declared. Brandmeister^talk 21:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the government has resigned, added 2 alt blurbs (may need to double check them for grammar, im not a native speaker) 5.44.170.26 (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the updated alt blurbs, I'll touch them up a little for grammar Pacific26 (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The timeline needs to be updated with the resignation of the government, otherwise this has grown to the ITN level story, support posting. --Tone 08:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Updated with sources. Brandmeister^talk 12:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality needs information/decent source (i.e. not RT) on the resignation of the government. Consider this a supprt once that's done. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, Western sources added now. Brandmeister^talk 12:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How reliable is the US -funded RFERL? Mooonswimmer 13:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Alt blurb preferred over Alt II. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Very widely covered by Eng.-lang. RS sites on Wednesday. Seems potentially significant, at least to the region. (Unsurprisingly, the Russians are warning everyone else to stay out of 'their' back yard.) However, the article is organized in an unusual day-by-day scheme, and many citations are to non-English sources. Some, such as cite No. 19 to Central Asia Media, do offer English versions. On English Wiki, more English refs would be better. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-English language sources are acceptable, and the coverage may be better in the non-English version of a source compared to its English version. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support because it's easily important enough & the article is good enough. Jim Michael (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This has international significance and should be recognized as such in ITN. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 15:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, The government has resigned, makes it important news. Alex-h (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments, Kazakh president has requested CSTO intervention. Russian (and other CSTO) troops/MPs are likely to enter the country in the next few hours. We should update the blurb accordingly as it happens. 5.44.170.26 (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment' CSTO Collective Security Council has unilterally agreed to send troops/mps to Kazakhstan to stop the rioting (https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/csto-collective-security-council-to-deploy-pe-1442241.html) 5.44.170.26 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment – Shoot-to-kill ordered by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. Twenty-six protestors reported dead. [83][84][85][86] – Sca (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See #Ongoing/Update blurb 2022 Kazakh protests above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.215.241 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jim Corsi (baseball)

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Adequate depth of coverage, referenced. Spencer^T•C 00:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 3 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) RD: Viktor Saneyev

Template:ITN candidate

• With 600+ words, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Coverage seems okay, but more descriptions on what happened at other competitions (apart from the 1980 Olympics) would be great. Refs are missing from a couple of spots, and there are some old refs that need to be updated or replaced. This is close to be ready for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the tagged issues, but if there's anything else needed just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extra citations. This wikibio looks to be READY for RD now. Please note that the link in footnote #7 does not seem to lead to pertinent information. Perhaps this should be updated or replaced. I don't think this one defect should hold this RD nomination back, though. --PFHLai (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Citation #6 ("Viktor Sanayev Biography") has all the relevant information without any ambiguity. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kaiser matias. --PFHLai (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now looks good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Beatrice Mintz

Template:ITN candidate

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 07:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 PDC World Darts Championship

Template:ITN candidate

• Support. Article looks in good shape with sourced prose about the tournament including the final. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditionally Support We generally posting the victory of a person who awarding the tournament as ITNR, so why not posted as ITNR? Aside from that, the article looks in good shape.125.167.57.8 (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are no darts events at WP:ITNR, so this nomination requires vetting.—Bagumba (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I accept that it's not just a bar game in some parts of the world, but I don't have a sense of its signficance. There was no front page coverage at The Independent's UK page nor ESPN.co.uk, but there was at ESPN.nl and BBC.com.—Bagumba (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because I am against this being part of ITNR because I don’t think this event is significant enough. Tradedia^talk 06:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U This is not an ITNR nomination. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, sporting event that is not of global importance. Sandstein 09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:U "Global importance" is not to be found anywhere in the ITN criteria. If global importance was required, very little would be posted. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the tournament included competitors from 30 countries on nearly every continent. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We really should be trying to feature at most one top level routine event from any organized type of competition as long as we know that's regularly covered by news (so that speed underwater basketweaving competition sadly won't make it) so that we have a broad spectrum of these across a year. This seems like the top tier event in darts, and is covered, so this seems appropriate. --Masem (t) 13:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not important event for me. 116.206.35.4 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That this is not personally important to you is not a reason to oppose this nomination, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the World Darts Championship is important to every man, woman and child, whether they are into darts or not. – Sca (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm not particularly interested in darts, but this is a decent article in terms of quality, including sourced prose of the final match. This topic is in the news and I think posting it fulfills our purpose. We've also posted it before. The oppose arguments given are not particularaly persuasive. 331dot (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support primarily because it is good original content, which is our primary purpose. The significance debate is fine, but we have established general consensus that one event per significant sport (minimum) is appropriate. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good quality article, in the news, posted in the last 3 occurrences, Oppose rationales are generally WP:IVENEVERHEARDOFIT. We post a number of sporting events (indeed, many are ITNR) whose significance to much of the world is negligible. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, only 3 of the last 4: Not 2021.—Bagumba (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I assumed it had been cancelled last year. Looks like the problems with it were quality related though. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good quality and fully updated article. Top event in a significant sport. the wub "?!" 13:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Top tier event, decent article, in the news.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support - It's the top event of a sport that's watched in multiple countries with contesters from all over the world (which is more than can be said of certain ITNR sporting events....), there should be no question on notability for ITN. There is a "[clarification needed]" buried in the article that need fixing first though. -- KTC (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Because this has been posted three of the last four years - last year being the exception because of the quality of the article - I see no reason not to do so again this year. If posted, I'd recommended this be considered for ITNR as well. Calidum 17:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good. I have no problem directing people to it from the main page. --Jayron32 18:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Template:Posted It seems that the PDC Championship is starting to become de facto ITNR as the first blurb of each new year, but a formal discussion to that effect will have to be done. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we find a better photo? The resolution is poor. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have opened an ITNR addition discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Igor & Grichka Bogdanoff

Template:ITN candidate

• Comment Brother's nomination is still outstanding at #(Posted) RD: Grichka Bogdanoff.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question could they be included in the same space as "Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff"? Or would they have to be separate? In any case, the tags that are there should be fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Too many tags and issues with sources used. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support when problems with article are fixed. Important to mention is that "Several friends told them to get themselves vaccinated but they felt because of their lifestyle and their lack of comorbidity, they weren't at risk of Covid." and ""They were both athletic, with not an inch of fat, and they thought the vaccine was more dangerous than the virus.". Count Iblis (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For RD, the articles can be posted when they are in shape, no need to "support when fixed" ;) --Tone 16:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support their article is fine considering their "storied" career, and with both dying so shortly after another there isnt gonna be another opportunity to post this. jonas (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nowhere near in shape for posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have cleared most of the bad source tags. Lots of content in the Bogdanoff Affair section was based solely on poor sources such as Usenet posts and direct links to journal articles, which I have trimmed and replaced where possible. Kafoxe (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as a joint entry. Stephen 23:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mordechai Ben-Porat

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose Lines and paragraphs unsourced. This must be fixed before it can be included in the Main Page. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Inadequate sourcing and frankly it's little more than a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: S. H. Sarma

Template:ITN candidate

• Support (as nominator, apparently) An interesting character, decent length, no glaring weaknesses. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well written atricle and has sufficient sources. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment His autobiography is heavily cited. Not sure if there is a concern with independent sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Bagumba. Far too much primary sourcing to post. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I gave this one a cursory read, but, it seems like his autobiography is sourced for non-contentious factual statements. Ktin (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per GCG. Using primary sources for the odd few things is OK, but when it's approaching 50% of the citations there are concerns about paraphrasing, excessive detail, independence, etc. When the next most used source is somebody else's autobiography I'm also wondering about the reliability overall. Thryduulf (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen News of Hong Kong shut down after Stand News' closure

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose on quality article is short, and being made to look longer by an enormous quote that is a massive recentism. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting the quality issue above, the Stand news is still in the box, so that can be updated to include this, rather than a new blurb. But the article quality needs to be there. --Masem (t) 13:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I'm also thinking that, but I can't think of a new blurb. Of course, the article can be expanded from zhwp though.--1233 ( T / C） 18:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PM Abdalla Hamdok of Sudan resigns

Template:ITN candidate

• Comment This seems to be a step in the coup, as Hamdok had been detained when the coup started, and this appears to be admission he will not be the leader as the coup continues. --Masem (t) 01:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Possible that an ongoing entry may become appropriate if this event continues to unfold with real and encyclopedic updates. - Indefensible (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that in considering ongoing, there has been very little posted on a day-to-day basis to justify an ongoing topic. This seems like the most recent update in the last 2 weeks, for example. --Masem (t) 01:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Significant step in this story, being covered internationally. Article is briefly updated and appears adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have a feeling we should delay the blurb in case of new updates. (PenangLion (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Support significant story, which is in the news. Fine to post now, and can update if there are further developments- waiting in case there are more developments seems like WP:SPECULATION to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is one-sentence update in the article, though it is as factual as it can get. Still feels a bit short. --Tone 16:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Ping It is a short update, but it is a breaking news story so I'm sure it'll get expanded as more information is known. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support significant story and the article looks good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 17:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ... for now. Updated portions look quite thin. – Sca (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The coup d'état made him a lame duck Prime Minister. So his resignation is no longer at the level of importance of a blurb. Tradedia^talk 04:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 2 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) RD: Robert J. Birnbaum

Template:ITN candidate

• Support looks ok. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Efford

Template:ITN candidate

• Long enough (800+ words) and with enough footnotes at expected spots, this wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Larry Biittner

Template:ITN candidate

• Support Referenced, good quality depth. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 00:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(RD posted, closed) RD or blurb: Richard Leakey

Template:Atop Template:ITN candidate

• Comment. Would be prepared to support blurb on notability but the article is sadly in need of sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto - he could even be a blurb candidate as top paleoanthropologist, but oppose on quality. Kingsif (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Template:Ping I am going through the article and adding citations, hopefully the article will be main page-ready when I'm through. PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 05:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if... - Citations are fully complete, and the section regarding his death could be expanded. (PenangLion (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]
• Support - I have updated the article with citations where they were missing. Pinging Template:U and Template:U (sorry for the double ping) and Template:U in hopes that you can reconsider your !votes. Thanks, PCN02WPS(talk contribs) 07:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have also suggested a couple of blurbs as the first two comments under this nomination suggested that the subject might be notable enough for one. PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 07:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Richard Leakey is a famous name in anthropology, wild-life conservation, and was a politician in Kenya. His father and mother are household names for their groundbreaking discoveries that effectively changed our narratives on human evolution. I don't see any reason on objecting a blurb for him, as the Leakeys are often used as topics for encyclopaedias. The article is decently covered and cited. My only concern is with the section regarding his death. There's only 5-6 words for it. (PenangLion (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

So he should get a blurb because of what his parents did? 331dot (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are warping my words. If the requirements for Betty White and John Madden's inclusion for a blurb could give so much arguments why not Richard Leakey? (PenangLion (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not warping anything. You cite his parents in explaining why he should have a blurb. Did he have a 90 year groundbreaking career, or expand the reach of his field to millions of viewers? 331dot (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion is meant to be transformative & top of their field. I can't see how he fit that description. White & Carrie Fisher weren't either & shouldn't have been blurbed. Madden wasn't & he wasn't blurbed. Jim Michael (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White was transformative in television. We also blurb deaths where the death itself is a story, as with Fischer. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say we (should) blurb high-profile deaths of people who otherwise aren't blurb-worthy? If that were the case, we should have blurbed Gabby Petito, whose death received a great deal of media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ITNRD: "Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident)". This is why Fischer was posted, she unexpectedly died due to a health problem. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health problem, AKA natural causes, AKA the lone manner of death excluded by that sentence. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically called out, but not specifically excluded, either. It's in keeping with the spirit of the text. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are four manners. Making a point of specifying only three clearly excludes the other one. Like when a text adventure game says available exits are north, west and east (the road to the south is impassable). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to subscribe to that interpretation; I do not. It's easy enough to change "such as" to "such as and limited to" if desired. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not poetry, it's logic. If it wanted to allow for natural mundane deaths, which are almost never newsworthy on their own, it would have stopped after "figure". Take my advice or leave it, but it's not based in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death being the main story is true of cases like Andrei Karlov, not Fisher. The story was famous actress dies. What she died of was only a small aspect of the reporting of her death. Jim Michael (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was unexpected and sudden(not "old or sick person dies"). If her death was no big deal, then the media should not have reported on it as they did. But they did. In any event, I've already taken this too far off course. 331dot (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb - article seems improved but not clear what impact the subject had for his field other than finding a few skeletons and promoting conservation, and threshold for blurbing should be higher in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb - not close to being important enough for a blurb. Compare his career & article to those of blurb-worthy scientists such as Stephen Hawking & Richard Dawkins. Jim Michael (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The bibliography section needs a reference. Otherwise, RD is appropriate. --Tone 09:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. We now know that we originate from Africa thanks to the work of the Leaky family. The old idea was that some Neanderthal offshoot in Europe evolved into modern humans. Count Iblis (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That would have made Australian Aboriginal people hard to explain. HiLo48 (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See here. I guess the idea was that modern humans then later moved to other parts of the World. Count Iblis (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. He was important to his field, but I don't think he was at or even near the top of it, or otherwise had a broad influence on the world. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb article is good enough for RD. But as per above, not ground breaking enough for a blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RD posted No current consensus for blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Important to his field, but not so important overall or getting news coverage that would suggest need for a blurb. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment. The sourcing when it was posted was not good. I found three cites to Geni.com and several to other WP:SPSes. A lot of the dubious sources were apparently added recently (judging from the access-date params). We should not be encouraging ITNRD participants to add dubious sources to apparently resolve cn tags. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RD pulled based on added citation tags.—Bagumba (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentTemplate:Ping six of the seven added cn tags have been resolved with sources; one has been removed along with the quote it accompanied as I could not find a source for the direct quote. PCN02WPS(talk contribs) 03:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New cites much better, thanks. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RD re-posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Betty White and John Madden were household names for millions around the world, while I doubt the average Joe has ever heard the name "Richard Leakey", no matter how transformative or important his work was to his field. I, for one, had no idea who this man was until I saw this discussion. There are only so many scientists, anthropologists, philosophers, etc. who could be called "household names". People may know about the origin of man thanks to the work of the Leakey family, but they very much likely don't know or have never heard their name. It's a sad reality, but a reality nonetheless. 2806:109F:1:16E1:28B6:825:A0DD:7603 (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abot

(Posted) RD: Gary Burgess

Template:ITN candidate

• Comment - needs ref improvement per orange banner before posting. - Indefensible (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Template:Ping I have taken care of those issues. PCN02WPS (talk contribs) 16:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per good work by PCN02WPS; article seems a bit light still on coverage of his career relative to his personal life, but waiving opposition based on notability per consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Can we say more about his career? That section is shorter than his farewell letter. Joofjoof (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bio currently limited to mentioning only his employers with little else about his actual career. Lead also fails MOS:INTRO without key highlights.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There has been plenty source material in the last week since his death, with various publications writing about his career (such as in a special TV programme), so I've expanded the article and have hopefully addressed Template:U and Template:U's concerns. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Recent expansions have much improved the coverage. The Intro looks better, too. Obviously, the wikibio is long enough, and there are enough footnotes across the prose. This looks READY for RD to me. Do Joofjoof and Bagumba want to take another look, please? --PFHLai (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd look: career section is longer, although the references may need a check: metro.co.uk is a deprecated source, and the Pride of Jersey award is cited to a Facebook post. The "illness and death" section is overly detailed - better to add Burgess' blog as an External Link. Joofjoof (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that the illness section seems too long relative to the career section, granted this is not supposed to be a GA. The full text of his letter seems overkill (WP:MEMORIAL?)—Bagumba (talk)

  I've removed the quote from the letter, per NOTMEMORIAL. I've also removed the Metro ref - that piece wasn't original Metro journalism but a widely syndicated article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Joofjoof and Bagumba, for re-reviewing. It looks like Curb Safe Charmer has addressed your concerns. --PFHLai (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Basti Vaman Shenoy

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose Terribly written, not especially famous, unsourced chunks, Template:S three coatrack sections. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Let’s fix it, shall we? 10:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• No deal, I fixed his language's article, slightly. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Comment Friendly reminder notability does not bear on RD, only article quality. That said, nearly the entire article is unsourced.The Kip (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Folks, I am sorry, I might have to let this one slide. I tried working this article, but, a combination of writers block (is that it?) and some real ad-ware infested sites (that consistently slow my computer) means that I just have not been able to work this one. Thanks for all your time. If anyone has cycles to work this article, you will have my gratitude, but, please do not feel compelled to. Ktin (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Parliament of South Africa fire

Template:ITN candidate

• Comment Picture contradicts blurb, update? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? It's the building pictured in references [8] and [10] (at time of posting this). Mjroots (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No signs of a fire. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there was one of the building on fire available it would have been used. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Better to use no picture than one at odds with its headline, in my opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Template:Re there's an image available now. Mjroots (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Less cognitive dissonance, but way lower resolution. It was never the thing holding me back from voting, though. Still just watching, thanks for the progression. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not trying to be disrespectful to anyone, but Betty White is alive in the photo that is currently on the Main Page. What I mean is that just because "the photo doesn't show the building on fire" doesn't mean that it is better to not have a photo. Tube·of·Light 13:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In still photos, the difference between an old person and a recently dead person is slighter than between something severely damaged by fire (not necessarily on fire) and something idyllic. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone would understand it must be a stock photo. More informative to add least tell what it looks like (I didn't know, I know what CAN, AUS, UK, US and a few other parliaments looks like but not South Africa) if you don't have a non-copyvio after photo. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- when we verify that the fire is as major as it appears, I would more fully support posting this. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC) -- now I fully support it once sufficient coverage is posted on wiki. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significant event, I mean a (from the looks of it) intense fire at a country's parliamentary building is a rare and notable event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No indication of significance of fire in the article update currently. Also referencing issues in the general article.—Bagumba (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Fairly widely covered on a slow post-holiday Sunday, but details remain sketchy, with no fatalities reported yet. – Sca (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the BBC article points out this was the second fire in a year at the buildings. And while part of the building is 100+ years old, this doesn't seem to have a landmark status like the Notre Dame fire from a few years back. Add no injuries and this is a typical fire. --Masem (t) 14:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It was the university library what got it in April. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "It is the second fire at the parliament in under a year. In March there was a fire caused by an electrical fault." from the BBC article. --Masem (t) 14:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saw that, too, trout me! InedibleHulk (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Small

• Oppose for now. Topic does not have its own article and is limited to a single paragraph in the bolded article. That's not even close to adequate coverage for an ITN blurb. We rarely post events that don't have their own page and the coverage in the linked article would be considered a micro-stub if it were its own article. Am open to reconsidering once the event has a standalone article of sufficient length. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it has one line in an article- this is not sufficient to show that it's an ITN-worthy event. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - poor quality target article, from what I can tell. Kafoxe (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because the article gives no indication of there having been any casualties. We shouldn't post a fire just because it happened at an important building. Jim Michael (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We did post the causality-lacking Notre Dame fire, but I think it should be clear the difference between the nature of these events. --Masem (t) 18:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose,There is not enough information of the incident, it has not an article. Alex-h (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on principle successful arson attacks on a national legislature seem inherently notable to me. Article isn't ready yet, but it could get there. This incident probably deserves its own article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They've arrest a person of interest but whether it was for arson or not, we don't know. So let's not jump the gun with a non-neutral stance yet. --Masem (t) 21:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support article may be short, but in a few words it explains the situation as clearly as is possible at this stage of the investigation. The article is well-cited, and meets the other quality requirements for ITN. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability / Wait per NorthernFalcon. A quality target article is needed. A quick search for "south africa" produces loads of secondary sources from reputable outlets that could be used to write a quality article, but we'll have to see if one can be written up while it's still in the news. Maybe it'd be best to revisit this conversation if/when the topic is covered adequately on the encyclopedia so the discussion won't be cluttered by "oppose for now" !votes? Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability grounds as probable arson attack on national parliament building, but the target article needs sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Monday coverage includes pending criminal charges against suspect, details of damage. [87] [88] – Sca (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is now a dedicated page, 2022 Parliament of South Africa fire, though it is still a stub. If notable, that seems like the route to go to avoid WP:UNDUE coverage in the main parliabment page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I think this is notable enough for ITN (if a fire broke out at the U.S. Capitol building, of course we'd post that), the problem is that there's not enough information on Wikipedia at the moment. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle That arson is suspected is a big point here. I think a regular fire falls just short notability wise, but given the belief that it was done intentionally (forget whether or not it is proven, unless we are of the mindset that an indictment of an individual for arson would be an auto-post) I think this is a worthy story. That said, the article does seem a bit short and disorganized at the moment. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now there's a dedicated article which is short but well referenced. A suspect has been charged with arson, which I agree makes it more notable than an accidental fire would have been. There is an official report on the fire due on Friday, which will hopefully help with expanding the article further. the wub "?!" 13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've updated the section header and the bolding in the blurb. The ITN candidate is now "2022 Parliament of South Africa fire". --PFHLai (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As there is an article about it now, and as arson against a nation's government is quite noteworthy, it is now worthy of ITN. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will point out that it has still not yet been absolutely ruled arson. --Masem (t) 05:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately, neither of the blurbs indicate that it was definitely arson. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Cot Portal:Current events/2022 January 1 Template:Cob

---

(Posted) RD: Richard Freed

Template:ITN candidate

• Weak support Would like to see more depth of coverage (e.g. what he did in leadership roles) but what's there meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 05:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This wikibio is long enough and have enough footnotes. It's READY for RD. It would be nice if there is more to read about what he did as a "music program annotator". --PFHLai (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ready to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dan Reeves

Template:ITN candidate

• Ready, I think. Lmk if we missed anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well hot damn...that's some good work! Article looks good for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Multi-paragraph sections, clear photograph, no glaring style or sourcing errors; easily the best article from Deaths in 2022, should set the new standard of quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RCEP comes into effect for ten countries

Template:ITN candidate

• Oppose As this has already been posted and this is a long-term work-in-progress, it doesn't seem that this milestone is making enough waves to be worth posting again. For example, the WSJ says "So far 10 of the 15 member nations have formally ratified the agreement ..." and so there are still plenty of formalities remaining. And the actual impact on regional and global trade remains to be seen. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When was this previously posted? This is separate from the one mentioned in the nominator's comment, and that should be precedent for this even more significant agreement. - Indefensible (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mea culpa but the names of these things seem easy to confuse. Reminds me of something. Anyway, it's still not making much impact in the news right now. Looking for coverage in mainstream media like the BBC, I find What is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)? and The meaning of RCEP, the world’s biggest trade agreement. But those items were published in November and so it's arguably stale. The matter seems analogous to Brexit, which dragged on interminably and still isn't fully resolved. I could be persuaded that this is the time to highlight it as we might otherwise never do so but would want to see more heavyweight coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We should also consider the state of the article. This was created in 2013 as there have been negotiations since 2011. It seems to be remarkably well cited and so the quality seems acceptable. But it's the sort of topic that might be prone to PR spin or commercial/nationalist bias. We should consult some of the editors who have been doing the work: Normchou and Khestwol, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per what Andrew said. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm from one of those countries. I pay attention to theses sorts of things, and I've never heard of this one. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Re FWIW, here's coverage in one country.—Bagumba (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this should be included for encyclopedic coverage and (being the largest free trade bloc in history) is far more significant than a number of the other current blurbs; article seems in decent shape per the guidelines for posting. - Indefensible (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Encyclopedic, article looks well sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This has been posted before. No need to post it again. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous nom for this was not posted, the article mentioned above is for a different case which should be considered as precedent. - Indefensible (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If indeed this has been posted before than this is an easy oppose, but the article itself notes that the elimination of tariffs will be done over a period of 20 years, which seems a little glacial for being worth posting. It's probably less of a valid argument, but the fact that actual impacts have been called into question and that not all tariffs are being eliminated (calling into question the supposedly true "free trade" part of the agreement) suggests this could not be as monumental as billed. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It has not been posted before, and been the largest free trade area in the world deserves the inclusion. Article in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets one of WP:ITNCRIT's objectives of showcasing timely, quality articles. Precedent with post of aforementioned agreement by nom, and added diversity of mostly non-English-speaking nations.—Bagumba (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on grounds of quality. The article might be long, but has almost nothing on the content of the agreement or on how it was negotiated. 95.91.246.26 (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Inquiry I'm too ill-informed to !vote on this one, but I'd like to know more about the rationale of some of the oppose !votes. For those who oppose on the grounds that it has only come into effect for 10 of the countries and its effects are not yet known, would you support blurbing once all countries sign onto it, or would it be too stale by then? To my understanding, the story here is that this is now the largest trading bloc in the world. Side note, I ask that those who stated "This has been posted before" strike their comments. This is untrue. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Interesting but doesn’t meet the blurb bar for me at this point. Tradedia^talk 14:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe it will be newsworthy when every participant of the trade pact executes the deal. But there are also many reasons why it won't be newsworthy even then. Normchou ^💬 19:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]