Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page, as well as the forum for discussion of candidates. This is not the page to report errors in the ITN section on the Main Page—please go to the appropriate section at WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba in January 2022
Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba

How to nominate an itemEdit

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{ITN candidate}} to nominate the article related to the event in the news. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable secondary source. Press releases are not acceptable. The suggested blurb should be written in simple present tense.
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at WP:ITN.

Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an itemEdit

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do not...Edit

  1. add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
  3. accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Conflicts of interest are not handled at ITN.
  4. comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

Please be encouraged to...Edit

  1. pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Suggesting updatesEdit

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • For simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at WP:ERRORS in the ITN section.
  • For more complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent, that should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


October 3Edit

October 2Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • Twenty-six people are killed and ten others are injured when a tractor pulling a wagon with around 40 people on board overturns into a pond in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. (AP)

Health and environment

  • Haitian authorities announce an unexpected resurgence of cholera in the country and report that at least seven people have died from the disease. (Reuters)

Law and crime

Politics and elections


RD: Darshan DharmarajEdit

Article: Darshan Dharmaraj (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Titanciwiki (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing: Mahsa Amini protestsEdit

Article: Mahsa Amini protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): JPost, ABC, Time, BBC, Reuters, VOA, Iran Intl

Nominator's comments: Event continues to evolve and receive coverage since posting on September 22. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose because the blurb fell off ITN 3 days ago, and we didn't post it to Ongoing when that happened. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Items don’t get automatically posted to ongoing when they drop off. They need a separate nomination, which is exactly what this is. Stephen 00:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 London MarathonEdit

Article: 2022 London Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Yalemzerf Yehualaw of Ethiopia becomes the youngest woman to win the London Marathon whilst Amos Kipruto of Kenya wins the men's race. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I added this to current news portal. We posted the Berlin marathon not long ago, I believe this is just as notable. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment This is on WP:ITNR, so no comparisons to Berlin needed (which incidentally was only posted indirectly because of the world record).—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now pending sourced prose on the actual race and results.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • comment: i have added to the nomination the article creator and the editor who posted the results. Abcmaxx, if an editor eventually updates the article with a race summary, could you add that updater to the nomination and mark the nomination as updated? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de TriompheEdit

Articles: Alpinista (talk · history · tag) and Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In horse racing, Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian

Nominator's comments: I added this to current news portal. I know very little about horse racing, but both articles are in good shape and from their content I gather this is a notable horse winning a prestigious event. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose and snow close not ITNR. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Events that are in a class covered by ITNR but not an ITNR themselves are not immediately disqualified from being posted, just they have the usual ITNC process to review. Masem (t) 19:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree. -- Sca (talk) 19:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
      • What/whom is it you are agreeing with by the way? Abcmaxx (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • There's no reason to snow close. A recurring event can't become ITN/R until it passes ITN as a regular candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Likewise I do not see why this should be closed just because it's not ITN/R. If we did that nothing would ever get posted bar a small handful of ever-diminishing number of recurring events.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, but what you cannot deny is that a sporting event is not the same as a political or scientific event. These last ones can be debated (as it has happened in so many other occasions correctly) and come to the conclusion that in spite of not being listed as ITNR, they might be notorious. But in sporting events, more simply, if they are no longer ITNR, they can hardly be ITN. I remind again that not everything that’s in the news, should be proposed here. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on article quality and significance. Contrary to the nomination text, most of the article is completely unreferenced and is quite short for a race that dates back to 1920. - Fuzheado | Talk 23:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ramzan KadyrovEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Ramzan Kadyrov (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ramzan Kadyrov joins the Russian rightwing, including Dmitry Medvedev, in advocating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ramzan Kadyrov joins the Russian right in advocating the use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
News source(s): CNN. Reuters, Al Jazeera

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Majority of Russian right now pressuring Putin to nuke Ukraine Johncdraper (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose on the following:
1. Cannot see the ITN/R rationale anywhere.
2. Nominated article is about an individual not an event.
3. Threats of nuclear aggression are an ongoing Russian propaganda tool since February invasion, and arguably since the start of the Cold War.
4. Covered in ongoing.
5. Lacks any significance; all talk no action.
6. Sources only mention this remark in passing, and not widely commented upon elsewhere.
Abcmaxx (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • This is clearly not ITNR. I've removed that from the nom template. --PFHLai (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose and snow close simply not. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Snow close Per above. This is just one of many comments made by various Russian officials during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. ITN is clearly not the place to feature this. Gust Justice (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 Latvian parliamentary electionEdit

Article: 2022 Latvian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In the 2022 Latvian parliamentary election, the ruling New Unity wins a minority. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In the Latvian parliamentary election, the ruling center-right New Unity (leader Krišjānis Kariņš pictured) wins a plurality of seats.
News source(s):, DW, France 24

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: 97% of the votes have been counted. The center right party is victorious. Haris920 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now This is ITNR, but the article, specifically the aftermath section, will need some expansion before being posted. Also the blurb should use the term "plurality" rather than minority. Gust Justice (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once expanded and Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Lots of stats not nearly enough prose. Only 1 sentence of aftermath. Very little background and given inflation, energy and national security crises currently ongoing in Latvia, as well as language and ethnic tensions and refugee crises due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these really need to be added to the article and their effect on the election. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Support once expanded looks like the article is in the process of being improved. also prefer the alt blurb. e.b. (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ALT1 once expanded. ALT1 is more clear of what the result actually was. Curbon7 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: Brazilian general electionEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2022 Brazilian general election (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Article needs updating
 MSN12102001 (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait for results and nominate them as blurb, not ongoing. a!rado (CT) 09:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just post the results the first round results are in. I don't recall having an ongoing section for the French Presidential election which is similar to this. Haris920 (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Strongly disagree, this nothing like the French election. Brazil is a much larger country both in terms of population and area, therefore the gap between the two rounds is much longer. Very different circumstances of the candidates and background to this election too. Furthermore and most importantly, France did not have a president that would realistically decline to recognise the results if lost and threaten reinstate a military dictatorship. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait let's see if the 2nd round is needed first; then given the particular set of circumstances this would qualify in between the rounds to have it as ongoing. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose as ongoing Unless the result of the second round is particularly close. Obviously if a candidate wins a majority in the first round, then the article should be posted per ITNR. Gust Justice (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait Until theres results, theres nothing to blurb/post; if Lula wins outright, it should just be a blurb; if a second round is needed, given the high profile of this election and the vitriol coming from the candidates and thier supporters, I think ongoing would be warrented. (this is not to say that 2 round election cycles should generally be nominated for ongoing between the votes) ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  18:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2022 World Rally ChampionsEdit

Article: 2022 World Rally Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In motorsport, Kalle Rovanperä and Jonne Halttunen win the World Rally Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In motorsport, Kalle Rovanperä wins the World Rally Championship, becoming the youngest World Rally Champion at the age of 22.
News source(s):,,

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Despite the season has not finished yet, I believe the story is good to post as this is a record-breaking year. Unfortunately, I could not find a good image from Commons, so it would be very appreciated if someone could upload the free work of Rovanperä. Unnamelessness (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support for the alternative blurb with notability on the age. Compared with the other FIA sanctioned top-tier racing series, the F1, Sebastian Vettel's age was above 23 when he became a champion. (talk) 05:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support great quality article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not seeing any coverage in the news media (unlike F1) and so it's not "in the news". For example, Dirtfish is a driving school! Andrew🐉(talk) 12:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Comment – Absent from main RS sites. – Sca (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • If you want to question the ITNR-appropriateness, that's something to discuss at the talk page. --Masem (t) 13:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Major world sports event, and more so in motorsport, just behind F1; so even if this was true then it would be more a reflection of the state of sports reporting rather than anything else. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Page looks to be in good shape, reported at BBC and Reuters. Youngest world champion is significant enough to make the blurb but I'm not sure it needs a link. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing: Hurricane IanEdit

Article: Hurricane Ian (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ian is about to be displaced from the ITN box by two nominations that are getting ready to be posted. I propose that it go to ongoing while the search for survivors and remains is ongoing. The death toll has been rising quite a bit and it's expected to continue rising as searches continue pending the receding of water. NoahTalk 02:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Hurricane that was and isnt a hurricane anymore therefore not ongoing. These happen all the time and yes people get caught up in them... It already got a blurb which is more than what the average cyclone gets (even when it is a cat 4-5 storm hitting settled areas).✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis." - We did the same thing for Idai in 2019 for the same reason, which didn't roll off as fast as this storm is going to. This is still very much in the news as it is feared that hundreds may be dead. We should keep it as an ongoing while these searches are turning up dozens of bodies a day. NoahTalk 02:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Pretty sure natural disasters don't go in ongoing. Per 4amking, it isn't even a hurricane anymore so there is zero point in adding it to ongoing. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • We have done it before. See no reason why we should kick an item that is clearly in the news off the ITN box. The storm itself is dead, yes, but the search for remains and survivors is very much ongoing and being covered in the news. There have been thousands of rescues and dozens of bodies uncovered each day. NoahTalk 03:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
      For that storm, at the time it fell off ITN, it was still a storm and still causing destruction. Ian has petered out, no one is expected it to cause further damage, so it would not be required for ongoing in terms of covering the long-tail of aftermath. Masem (t) 14:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now I'd rather just expand ITN to five blurbs for a few days than move Hurricane Ian to ongoing. I'll revisit this if it looks like three blurbs are going to be posted imminently. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Is it ongoing? Yes. Is it notable and in the news? Yes. Significant impact? Yes. Article quality? Fine. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article states "Hurricane Ian was'..." and "Dissipated: 2 October 2022". So no, it’s not longer ongoing. The fact that I will no longer be in MP is circumstantial. It is what it is as new entries have been included. That doesn’t make it any less noticeable (this is why it was posted days ago). Just do not overload the Main Page either with it. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Oppose the article is for the hurricane itself, which is no longer ongoing. i think it makes more sense to keep updates on search and rescue to the current events tab, which is the norm for most disasters natural and otherwise. e.b. (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We've already posted a blurb on the impact of the hurricane.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – All over but the shouting. – Sca (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

October 1Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

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

Article: Jim Sweeney (American football, born 1962) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium stampedeEdit

Article: 2022 Kanjuruhan Stadium disaster (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Malang, Indonesia, at least 182 people are killed in a stampede at a football match. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​In Malang, Indonesia, at least 182 people are killed in a stampede at an association football match.
News source(s): Reuters CBS News

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment second deadliest football-related incident in history (unless you count the Football War). Juxlos (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Further comment requesting article protection. There has been a wave of editors with very poor grasps of English attempting to edit the article and move it around, generally with noticeable slant of POV. Juxlos (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Support for request non-user/IP-only editors started changing death toll numbers without giving reliable news source or proper context. Dhio (talk?) 06:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC) (Update: vandalism incoming. Dhio (talk?) 07:04, 2 October 2022 (UTC))
    Requesting on WP:RPP   Done. —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 08:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Very unfortunate event. I'm speechless. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Dhio (talk?) 01:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment the death toll increased to 153, according to latest reports. Might be appropriate to consider modifying the blurb as "At least 153 people are killed in ......" and so on (emphasis to at least). Dhio (talk?) 02:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Pretty serious accident with significant death toll. And to think, just over soccer... what a crazy world. So unnecessary. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Support worst football incident in asia ever, worst football incident since 1964, worst human stampede in several years. so sad. e.b. (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article is sufficiently expanded to cover the basics of the event. --Masem (t) 01:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support Extremely deadly disaster and the article is in good shape. Mount Patagonia (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • support. clearly significant. article quality already exceeds the fuzhou standard. dying (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is a Must Post. Why are we waiting? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I'm from Indonesia, and this is a very serious and significant event. 153 dead, just because a football team lost, is a HUGE disaster. ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 03:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait The article is not ready to be put on the front page, there are too many grammatical errors. Mlb96 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see them. Example? HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait, but support if more update sufficient They stated that 130 people are killed now, no longer 129. Here's the source (talk) 03:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    182 and climbing now. — That Coptic Guy (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Tagging as ready. If there are errors in the article, tag the article per se. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Even deadlier than Hillsborough. But is it really confirmed, the number 182? —Angga (formerly Angga1061) 05:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support This is the second deadliest football-related disaster ever in the world. That shows a true significance. Chongkian (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- added Altblurb; specifying association football. Maybe not necessary, but it can provide some clarification for those of us who read "football" and think gridiron football. Rest in peace to all the victims. --RockstoneSend me a message! 07:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted I've posted the altblurb. Schwede66 08:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment is it worth linking the Super East Java Derby in the blurb somewhere as well? Maybe for the word "match"? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting support – Very widely covered. [3] [4] [5]Sca (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Blurb edit request: seems that there are corrections on the death toll, so it's still around 125-131 according to officials like the Vice Governor and the Chief of the Nat'l Police. Both stated that miscalculations had/might've happened from double records for single individuals. So, instead of "at least 182 people..", "at least 125 people..." might be better. Dhio (talk?) 13:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Done. See the update at WP:ERRORS. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

September 30Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections


RD: Rick RedmanEdit

Article: Rick Redman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Marvin PowellEdit

Article: Marvin Powell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Dan WiedenEdit

Article: Dan Wieden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ad Week

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American advertising executive - Dumelow (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Antonio InokiEdit

Article: Antonio Inoki (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): F4W Online;

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Professional Wrestling Icon, Japanese Politician, probably deserves a blurb for being a transcendent figure in both Pro Wrestling and MMA Spman (talk)Spman (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose — I'm sure others will bring up the usual bulldada concerning the mere presence or absence of citations, so I'll address another concern. The most glaring problem with the article is the coverage of his professional wrestling career, which is more a scattershot series of unconnected statements than an accessible overview. It provides little to no hint of Inoki's global impact or his approximately two-decade stint as the top star of one of the planet's biggest wrestling promotions, both of which were significant. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Bulldada? -- Sca (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    [8] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now I agree with RadioKAOS. Aside from the citations it needs, the article is also seriously lacking in content. I was surprised to see how short it is right now, considering Inoki's considerable stature in professional wrestling both in Japan and internationally. For example, there's only seven paragraphs in a section that covers over 30 years of his career. The article needs a lot of work, and if that could be done, I'd support a RD listing. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - If it wasn't for the amount of work the article needs, I'd say that Inoki might be blurb-worthy. He was a massive cultural figure in Japan and probably the most famous wrestler there of his era. He also founded what is currently the biggest wrestling company in Japan and was a long-time politician. Does being one of biggest name wrestlers in a country where wrestling is immensely popular qualify? I don't know, but it's probably worth a discussion. -- (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Lacks general impact or significance. – Sca (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Surely you must be sarcastic? Spman (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    You've been here long enough to know how this works, Sca. If someone who has an article dies, they're eligible for RD, unless someone nominates that article for AFD. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    It might be opposition to the proposal that he’s blurb-worthy. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support RD in principle once expanded, per above. Curbon7 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    • "Support RD in principle" means absolutely nothing. In principle, we'd post the article of every person who dies on RD. -- Kicking222 (talk) 02:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
      Exactly. Curbon7 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Robin MarlarEdit

Article: Robin Marlar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN; Sussex County CC

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - provides sourced coverage of both main areas of his life -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'étatEdit

Article: September 2022 Burkina Faso coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​In Burkina Faso, a coup d'état led by Ibrahim Traore deposes Interim President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): Reuters Al Jazeera

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Junta leader of Burkina Faso removed in coup. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak Support. Article is in early stages but looks good, however I'm not sure if this is important enough news.  — Rooves 13 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - as a change of government leader in a sovereign state, this is certainly "important enough news" as it's covered by WP:ITN/R. I also don't think we've ever rejected a successful coup before. The article is quite barebones at the moment but the main points probably there. Some reactions maybe and consequences would be useful but I guess it might be too early to know that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Upgrading to regular support. I think this is good to go. There isn't much reaction from the world yet, and I've added a note about the human rights president in the country. I think this is good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    'Much' reaction from the world seems unlikely, given Faso's recent history. -- Sca (talk) 12:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait to see if the coup holds or if any further developments occur. - Indefensible (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Wait for what exactly? Reliable sources are reporting that there was a coup and that a change of leadership has occurred. We don't need to apply CRYSTAL to that in thinking something might change.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    This is the second coup in BF this year. Masem (t) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe it should go into Ongoing, since something of this sort seems to have been in frequent delicto for quite some time. -- Sca (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems like a notable enough international event, even if the situation is still developing. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 13:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It’s ITNR, notable and article looks good enough to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, I believe we normally put successful coup in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted Stephen 22:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Second-cycle coverage: [9] [10]Sca (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing: 2022 Russian invasion of UkraineEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)
Nominator's comments: Remove the ongoing link, which is excessive while there is a posted blurb on Russia's annexation of Ukrainian regions. Those bolded links lead to pages which are navigable to other invasion-related info. —Bagumba (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I imagine this is why many didn't want to post a one-off story on the conflict. Do you propose readding it to ongoing when that blurb falls off? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Presumably it would still be ongoing. —Bagumba (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While we often wait to post 'ongoing' until after the inciting event of the ongoing situation has moved off the list, and remove things from 'ongoing' if we post a story that marks the conclusion of the ongoing situation, this is neither of those. The war is still going on, and the current headline is only one part of it - just a part of such signficance that it also gets a headline. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Worst time to remove the blurb, the conflict is going back to February/Marh 2022 levels of tensions. CR-1-AB (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of an item that absolutely refuses to leave the front pages in world journals. -- Ohc revolution of our times 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The invasion is clearly still ongoing, there is no reason to remove it just because a substory has been blurbed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Amakuru.  — Rooves 13 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just because Russia announces the annexation of four Ukrainian regions, doesn't mean the invasion isn't still very much an ongoing story. DJMcNiff (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Héctor LópezEdit

Article: Héctor López (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Death announced today. Date of death not given. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support GA, fully referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 01:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needs more sourcing at Héctor López#Panamanian history. I have concern that the section is WP:OR based on WP editor combing through "firsts" from stats database queries. With long-standing unsourced text on well-visited WP, there is also concern that a source is WP:CIRCULAR, and just mirroring "facts" already on Wikipedia. Care should be taken that a cited source mentioned the fact before WP introduced the unsourced material. The text in questions seems to have existed at least since the 2008 version that was listed as having been promoted to GA. It was only mostly sourced to a stats site, even then.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree that the section needs help before GAR comes up for sure. I'll take a deeper look. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Bagumba: I deleted that whole section, except for the sentence about him having two children, which was misplaced. I've made other edits as well, so please reassess. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Striking my oppose. I'm not surprised that the section was not salvageable.—Bagumba (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Kabul bombingEdit

Article: September 2022 Kabul school bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A suicide attack on a training center kills at least 23 people and injured 27 in Kabul, Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A suicide attack on an education center kills at least 23 people and injures 27 in Kabul, Afghanistan.
News source(s): CNN, BBC, The Guardian, DAWN, Al Jazeera, AP, DW, France24

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak support once expanded - This one seems to be getting more news coverage than the others, and just passes the notability test in my opinion. That being said, it would be laughable to post an article with only a single sentence, as this one currently is. Quantum XYZ (talk) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait - Obvious reasons Prodrummer619 (talk)(@ when responding) 10:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Education centre" is a better descriptive and per sources, "training centre" is ambiguous. Gotitbro (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on merits, oppose on size I'll fully support this when it's expanded and no longer a stub. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support because it's easily important enough & the article is sufficient. Alt blurb, because the original blurb makes it sound like the target was a military facility. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, The article needs some work, but with this number of losses it should be in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: Remove "ready". At this time, the article does not have "three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs" (the minimum requirement for depth per WP:ITN). SpencerT•C 02:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per support reasons above. Dhio (talk?) 09:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Narrative text totals 190 words, i.e. stub territory. – Sca (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

September 29Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD:Akissi KouaméEdit

Article: Akissi Kouamé (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Press Ivoire (in French)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First Ivorian female army officer. An article I wrote a few years ago to improve our coverage of female military figures. Dumelow (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - The article appears comprehensive and sourced, and the person certainly adds to the breadth of coverage -- PaulBetteridge (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Al PrimoEdit

Article: Al Primo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Philadelphia Inquirer; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; WABC-TV

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: The 2 sentences related to Marie Torre in the intro seem out of place and Torre isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Otherwise, good depth of coverage, and conditional support when that is addressed. SpencerT•C 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Spencer: done – removed because I could not find any reliable sources to verify the info. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I've added a {cn} tag for the origin of "EyeWitness News". --PFHLai (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. Thanks for the new footnotes, Bloom. --PFHLai (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

RD: Leonard A. ColeEdit

Article: Leonard A. Cole (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported in a reliable source today (September 29); died on September 18. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied UkraineEdit

Articles: 2022 annexation referendums in Russian-occupied Ukraine (talk · history · tag) and Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Putin declares four occupied Ukrainian territories as part of Russia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The four Ukrainian Oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson are formally annexed by Russia after widely condemned referendums.
Alternative blurb II: ​Four districts (Oblasts) of Russian-occupied Ukraine – Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – are formally annexed by Russia after so-called referendums are condemned by the international community.
Alternative blurb III: ​Four Oblasts of Ukraine are annexed by Russia after referendums are held within the territories.
Alternative blurb IV: ​Russia annexes the occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
Alternative blurb V: ​Russia announces the annexation of the occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.
Alternative blurb VI: ​Russia announces the annexation of the partially occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.
News source(s): CNN Reuters

Nominator's comments: This WILL happen and it's the most aggressive geopolitical/territorial change in the Western World since the end of the Cold War. Needs a better blurb. I posted this a bit early because the articles need a bit of cleanup and updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2f0e:d619:3d00:417c:3eac:70d0:f5cd (talkcontribs)

  • Good faith submission, and the "results" of the referendums seem to be clear now. The article looks solid, and in that respect I have nothing against this being posted. Excellent work on it. But the legality and genuinity of the referendums is obviously the big talking point. I think I'll give this a support. Coverage in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article on this subject is currently limited, so the readership will be very well-served by this article, and it's obviously major news with all news agencies. The blurb needs work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Wait – The annexation article needs a lot more work before it becomes suitable for posting. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait – Russian annexation is set for Friday, and we should wait for it to occur. See AP BBC Guardian Reuters DWSca (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait until the formal annexation on Friday.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait. This was already discussed a few days ago (under 23 Sept below) - the consensus was to wait until annexation actually happens, then reconsider. That will be Friday at the earliest. I suggest closing this nomination, which is premature. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • My apologies for not realizing this wouldn't actually be completed until tomorrow in my first comment above. The article should probably make this clearer. Right now it's only listing all of the results. I agree that this discussion should be temporarily closed until the correct date. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Alt4 is the one to use, when this actually happens. But that bolded article needs major work and is currently the subject of a move discussion. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once annexation takes place. Altblurb added. Quantum XYZ (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ... when it's a done deal. Favor Alt2. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • So are we taking the stance that Wikipedia will declare in its own voice that the referendums were sham elections? (I proposed Alt3, by the way.) 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Rather that than that we provide publicity cover for war crimes. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
We should not be trying to characterize the referendums, though we can mention something like "widely considered illegitimate" Masem (t) 22:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
If I introduced my son to you as "widely considered illegitimate", wouldn't that characterize him as a bastard? Well, it should. Same deal here, approximately enough (if a reader looks even slightly into the lead, they'll know what "we" want them to think). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the alt blurbs. Mentioning the referendum requires us to characterize it, and that opens a can of worms. The news is the declaration itself. The original blurb is somewhat inaccurate in calling them "occupied" as the annexation also applies to unoccupied areas. Perhaps "portions of Eastern Ukraine" threads the needle. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt4 - Annexation is the main focus, and the occupation regimes are hyperlinked. No need to hyperlink Russia, Ukraine or oblast, that's not usually done. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ) 15:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait - until it actually happens, when it does it should be Alt 3. Alt 1 & 2 violate WP:NPOV so theres no way those can be posted (though Alt2 would be ok without the "so-called"); the original and alt 4 lack context.✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'll have what he's having. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt4. We shouldn't mention the fake referendums where people were forced to vote at gunpoint and did not include the population that fled the Russian advance- or if we do mention them, it should be made clear that they are generally not recognized as free and fair(some say they are illegal under the UN charter). 331dot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once it happens. Would prefer AltBlurb 1. It's not a violation of NPOV to state that the referendums were widely condemned. On the contrary, reliable sources agree to call them sham referendums. Khuft (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt4 when it happens. Neutral on including the sham referendums under the condition we mention their broad denunciation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    For our Wikivoice, it seems best to term them "so-called," and let uninformed readers learn why from the article. ITN must maintain a tone of neutrality about controversial events. (This shouldn't be misconstrued as a personal notion that the referenda are anything other than modern-day Agitprop). -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'd be fine with that. While "so-called" is not recommended by MOS:ALLEGED, it's tough to think of a better alternative besides explicitly terming it a sham in Wikivoice, and failing to mention the illegitimacy of the referendums or otherwise implying that real referendums occurred would violate NPOV per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:FRINGE. A subtle expression of doubt like "so-called" could be the best option.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Well, they are called referendums by the Russians. So, "so-called" seems defensible. -- Sca (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine is not in good shape for posting, so we’ll probably have to wait until the article is improved even after the annexation formally happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support AltIV after official announcement. The annexing dwarfs the referendums that were (even from Russia's perspective) more or less a formality. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Putin signs decrees paving way for annexation of two Ukraine regions - Reuters  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt IV VI, although I would note that, strictly speaking, Russia has not demonstrated the ability to control that territory, so it could also say "announces the annexation" or "attempts to annex". BD2412 T 00:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The proposed blurbs might give the reader the impression that Russia controls all the territories within the oblasts it announces it will annex. This is not completely accurate, since they are only in part occupied by Russia. For instance Russia does not control Zaporizhzhia, but would "annex" it through it being part of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, but the blurb might make the reader think that Russia does in fact control all of the oblast. So I might replace the phrase "Russia annexes" with "Russia announces the annexation of", which would also clearly imply that this is a unilateral act on Russia's side. Gust Justice (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the intent is to annex the entire territory of the four oblasts so that the Ukrainian control of some parts could be considered aggression on Russian soil and the use of nuclear weapon would be justified. If they controlled the entire oblasts, they would've not rushed with these referenda.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Propose ALT5 based off above comment from Gust Justice and synthesis of other blurbs. We must be careful not to imply that Russia is doing this legally, nor that they control all of what they are claiming. The Kip (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Considering that some of the "annexed" regions are only partially occupied by Russia (e.g. the capital/largest city of Zaporizhzhia is still Ukranian, and has been throughout this war), we shouldn't state that these are "Russian-occupied" without qualifiers (partially-occupied?). Something like "Russia declares to have annexed four Ukrainian oblasts"? Fram (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt 5 with the addition that they are partially-occupied oblasts. Clearly newsworthy above the usual level of the war, but also we must be clear that this is not even an approximation of a democratic process. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    So something like: Russia announces the annexation of the partly occupied Ukrainian oblasts of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson after widely-condemned referendums.? Gust Justice (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Added (with a minor tweak) as Alt6. Fram (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. That was exactly what I meant. Support Alt 6, naturally. Well above the regular level of the war, and worth reporting. (For my part, I would also have blurbed at least some of the recent revelations of massacres, but that doesn't affect the issue here.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - Annexation now official. Quantum XYZ (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Yup. AP, DW, AlJazeera, BBC, France24Sca (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Source Gust Justice (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support altblurb 5 Formally done now, articles appear to be sufficient. Front page news in outlets and further major aggressive step. Brandmeistertalk 13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – Alt4 ... as the best summary. – Sca (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose firstly we should not be legitimising Russian propaganda and diplomatic blackmail; these are not real referendums in any way. If we start doing that we might as well post the 2022 Russian mobilisation or every threat of nuclear war Russia makes. Secondly this does not change anything in real terms at all; the 2022 Ukrainian counteroffensive for example is much more impactuful and that was rejected on grounds that it is covered in ongoing. Which leads to the last point; we should be consistent. We can't reject every war-related story such as Izium massacre and the Azovstal offensive and now suddenly post this; highly inconsistent. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Suggest we post this as soon as possible, as it's bound to be the No. 1 story worldwide today. – Sca (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait – As I mentioned all the way at the top, the annex article is currently far from ready. I'd be alright with featuring only the referendum article instead, if ya'll are in a hurry. Blurb VI looks good tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it's already in Ongoing; these referenda aren't so significant as to warrant a blurb. It's not even the first of these sham Russian referendums in Ukraine. If we're going to post a blurb about this war, there are more important events to blurb (like the Ukrainian counteroffensive, or the Russian draft and protests, or the UN's report on war crimes). Levivich (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The war is already in ongoing, and those fake elections do not really change much beyond adding an extra political narrative to it. Also, saying in the blurb that they are fake elections, and not saying so, both have their own controversies. Fortunately, we don't need to get into that mess, as we don't have to post every news headlines out there. Cambalachero (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The target should be changed to Annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine as this where the ITN significance lies and not on the referendums (as seen in the last ITN nom). Similarly either the blurb or altblurb4 should be posted without unnecessarily needling the issue of referendums. For editors worried about non-neutrality therein, "annexation" and "occupation" already make it clear that these are extra-judicial. This goes beyond ongoing in officializing the annexation of sovereign territory, similar to the Crimea conflict. Gotitbro (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Amended nomination in line with the above. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Superfluous, redundant. -- Sca (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt VI – This is a major escalation. I would suggest that ITN reconsiders its policy of not featuring major developments due to the invasion being in Ongoing. Other editors raise a number of things that weren't featured on that basis that probably should have been. Perhaps they can be featured for a shorter time, a matter of days? JackWilfred (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    What you are describing is exactly what ongoing is for: an expectation that significant events related to the larger event will continue to occur. A building collapses, war crimes are revealed, Ukraine will apply for NATO, Putin will make declarations and threats. Ongoing does not minimize these events by denying them a blurb. Quite the opposite: it recognizes they are so significant we will feature them on the main page without even having a discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • CommentFWIW, Already in German Wiki's ITN as: "Russian President Vladimir Putin announce[s] the annexation of the self-proclaimed "people's republics" of Lugansk and Donetsk, as well as ukraine's Kherson and Zaporizhia oblasts." Also in French and Czech ITN listings. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: people here may want to chime in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kherson Oblast (Russia) as a somewhat related discussion. Fram (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR appear to be written all over here, unlikely that any official Russian map or oblast statistics exist to this as of now. I doubt if even Russia is as fast as some of the fastest finger first editors here :|. Gotitbro (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: This nomination is full of alt blurbs, can we develop a consensus on one? (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt6 as the only precise one so far. Support posting as a major, development in this war, far beyond what "ongoing" is meant for. Fram (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Support per fram Bedivere (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • To add now, Ukraine has formally applied to join NATO, which is being reported as part of the same story as this annexing. [11]. --Masem (t) 16:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Add Ukraine–NATO relations? —Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. There's rough consensus to. I replaced "oblasts" with "regions" as a term that most English-speaking readers will be more familiar with. Sandstein 18:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove "after widely-condemned referendums" I believe there was rough consensus to exclude reference to them. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Clearly, "annexation", "occupied" provide enough context as is no need to further wikivoice the blurb (also annexation and not the referendums being the operative ITN here). Gotitbro (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Post support of "widely-condemned" or similar. Many sites are calling it an "illegal annexation", no this seems like an WP:NPOV alternative.—Bagumba (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    qualitative descriptors are subjective; thats the problem with "widely-condemned" ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  22:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Neutral doesn't mean bland, it means apply WP:DUE. —Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: Ukraine has applied for NATO membership. [12][13][14] Dennis Dartman (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Pull either we develop guidelines for what developments in the war are nonetheless blurb-worthy, or we simply do not post anything at all while the war is in Ongoing. Banedon (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Pull The current blurb wording is not one of the listed ALTs and so there doesn't seem to be a consensus. This blurb gives the impression that Russia has achieved a fait accompil like Crimea while, on the ground, it is actually being pushed back in a significant way..It is therefore quite misleading. The current uncertainty and pace of developments is more appropriate for Ongoing which is why we have the entry there.
  • Looking at how the blurb changed being about the announcement to being an actual annexation, it seems that this was done unilaterally for "balance". No discussion, no consensus, no balance. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
The biggest problem with the current blurb, is legally the territories haven't been annexed yet, the Russian State Duma still has to rubber stamp the "treaties" before they can be officially incorporated into Russia... Expected to happen sometime between October 4-5. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose pulling – The existing blurb may not satisfy everyone, but pulling what continues to be a very prominent story would be amateurish and puzzling to readers. Suggestions for blurb changes may be made at ERRORS. – Sca (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

September 28Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Andrew van der BijlEdit

Article: Andrew van der Bijl (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Telegraph, The Times

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Dutch Christian missionary, Bible smuggler and evangelist, announced 9/28. Content considerably revised for neutrality/removal of commentary, expanded with additional detail, and added third-party refs (instead of relying on his autobiography), and article is in much better shape now. SpencerT•C 01:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. As a sidenote, ref 14 works fine for me (despite having a permanent dead link tag). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom UrbaniEdit

Article: Tom Urbani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Santa Cruz Sentinel

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Good depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 23:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gavin EscobarEdit

Article: Gavin Escobar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian (Associated Press); ESPN; The San Diego Union-Tribune

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Referenced, good depth of coverage, marking ready. SpencerT•C 01:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: CoolioEdit

Article: Coolio (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, Variety

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Support - Well established and well known QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality Usual sourcing problems with filmographies. --Masem (t) 01:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Most of his discography is sourced at Coolio discography. Will be working on the filmography through tomorrow I'm sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ditto, suggest Photo RD when ready. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't oppose the idea of a photo RD but do you have any suggestion about which photo to use because the current one used in the article does not scale well to the smaller image size used in the ITN template. Regards SoWhy 05:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Sadly, I haven't, regular RD'll do. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Per WP:ITNPICT, the posted picture generally comes from a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Is there any time that a photo RD has been done based on notability, rather than times where there wasn't an applicable image for one of the main ITN blurbs? But speaking of blurbs, I wonder if he would actually be blurb-worthy - I'd arguably say Coolio is almost a household name, although he's probably not up there with others like Snoop Dogg or Eminem. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Everything starts somewhere. Coolio, Eminem and Snoop Dogg are household names (at least in my neighbourhood). Unlike you, I see this as a point against a blurb, since more people who see them in RD would already know they represent American rappers who died at age x. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    How about this photo? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I personally like it, but he seems a bit distracted from the lens by a certain sumpin' new, and I know from growing up in a funeral home how tasteless that particular organ can appear in context. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once issues at filmographies are solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Update' I've sourced a lot of the filmography. But, I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for the other ones. Some of the sites coming up on a Google search seem sketchy, I'm not sure of their reliability. If IMDb were reliable, this would be fully cited. Remembering that ITN/C does not require every single item to be cited, and since I don't think anyone is challenging whether or not Coolio was in some short video that doesn't have a wiki page, the question is: is this filmography cited enough? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I believe the sourcing is now at an acceptable level to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - per Pawnkingthree and Muboshgu. Jusdafax (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support § Filmography much better sourced compared to the revision of the first oppose. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill PlanteEdit

Article: Bill Plante (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American journalist. Worked for CBS News from 1964 - 2016. Thriley (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. However, article is not stable at the moment due to a vandal who continues to blank sections of sourced content, despite repeated warnings not to do so.Bloom6132 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Comment - Well, in fact the article is as of now locked down to all editing until Oct. 1, an admin action I have questioned on the article Talk page. I don't recall seeing this type of lockdown in nearly 15 years of editing here. Article now unlocked, my thanks to the admin in question. Jusdafax (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – still shortish but has been worked on and is ready as I see it, after some relatively minor back and forth on content. Jusdafax (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Hurricane IanEdit

Article: Hurricane Ian (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Florida, United States, after knocking out power to the entirety of Cuba. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba, knocking out power to the entirety of the island.
Alternative blurb II: ​At least sixteen people are killed after Hurricane Ian makes landfall in Cuba and Florida, and leaves millions without power.
News source(s): [15][16][17]

Nominator's comments: Category 4 hurricane hitting Florida today. Mandatory evacuations have already been called for. Cuba has lost all power as a result. Blurb can be updated with damage estimates. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Wait — Landfall has not occurred yet, but is expected to in the next 2-4 hours. After that, support. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Note: I added an alt blurb because currently, the impacts to Cuba are much more significant that Florida at the present time with the entirety of Cuba losing power. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm just making that the blurb for now because it's better than what I wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait per Elijahandskip. Landfall not expected just yet. Sarrail (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait ... as is de rigueur for developing weather events. Ian packs 155 mph winds, per AP report. Much Fla. fooding expected. – Sca (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Question - why are we waiting for it to impact the US? It's no longer a "developing" weather event—it knocked out power to all of Cuba. Why not post that now, then update the blurb when it hits the US? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, call it underway, if that makes you feel better. Semantics. But reports indicate the storm's biggest impact on people is likely to be in Florida. That Fla. happens to be in the U.S. is circumstantial, and not a factor in terms of news value. -- Sca (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
We don't post weather forecasts. We post what HAS happened. And surely what happens in Cuba matters? HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Sca: Are people in Cuba not people? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Idiotic comment. -- Sca (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am also wondering why we aren't doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Because the blurb would be misinformation saying “makes landfall in Florida”. That is why we are waiting Muboshgu and The ed17. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: Re-read what I wrote. I was calling for a different, Cuba-focused blurb to be posted. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Damage to Cuba is significant too, and we can say "approaches Florida" if it's posted before it makes landfall and update the hook as it does. Landfall in Florida appears to be imminent at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Hurricanes in the mid Atlantic during the summer-fall months making landfall and doing some damage or forcing evacuations is a routine news item. Its why Fiona wasn't posted. We're looking for the magnitude of damage which likely would be based on how bad Florida is hit. Masem (t) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Fiona could still use revisiting, even if it's trending stale. 27 deaths at last check. This is why these hurricane noms getting posted too early is a problem - they get buried before the storm's full impacts are known. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Why not bump them to the top if the death toll is at least 10-20 higher than the last time it was bumped off the top? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • What are the impacts to Cuba? That's more important than waiting around for whatever happens to Florida. When it makes landfall, we can update whatever blurb we posted for Cuba. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @WaltCip:, Muboshgu, The ed17, Sca, Sarrail: I just added an alt blurb for the Cuba landfall and impacts to Cuba. You guys want to post it just with the Cuba impacts until the US impacts are more clear, so let’s post that. Consider this a Support for the new alt blurb. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb. Whatever comes of the landfall in Florida, this is going to be a very significant storm.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    "Take heed of the stormy weather" – ?? — Sca (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait. We have to stop with these noms before we have any real damage reports or fatality numbers. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. -- Sca (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Agree. I'm all for having an uninvolved editor close this discussion so we can have a fresh one when we can actually make an informed decision about the notability. This one is already visually cluttered with predictable reactions to the premature nom.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
”actually make an informed decision about the notability”…Guess 2 fatalities and an entire nation without power doesn’t make something notable enough for ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@DarkSide830: Would like to point out, we have confirmed two fatalities and 11 million without power in Cuba alone. That alone should be enough to post a blurb, that then can be changed in the future (probably tomorrow) with the information about Florida. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
That wasn't enough with Fiona. 2 is not minimum deaths material and we don't have any tangible number on damages yet. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A hurricane knocking out power to all of Puerto Rico isn’t uncommon (happened with Hurricane Maria in 2017 for example). But as far as I am aware, it is extremely rare for all of Cuba to be without power. Also, Puerto Rico was 1.2 million without power while Cuba is 11 million. Equivalent to all of a single US state (like Florida) losing power from a hurricane. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, it was a struggle to get a consensus to post the 2019 South American blackout which left nearly 50 million without power, though we eventually posted it. We don't know enough about the damage to Cuba yet. I don't believe in "WP:MINIMUMDEATHS", but there is a line somewhere, and there's not a chance of a consensus forming when only two casualties are confirmed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Loss of power is an inconvenience (yes, critical infrastructure like hospitals need it, but that exists everywhere) from such a major storm, so its not worth posting on that alone. Masem (t) 18:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Masem: It's not just a loss of power from this storm, it's a loss of power for an entire country. That's unusual and worth posting. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Well I do fully disagree with Masem and Vanilla Wizard about wanting to wait to post Hurricane Ian until it becomes more notable. For all intents and purposes, I feel like you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion and I am saying my opinion that I fully disagree with that assessment. Slightly funny. I originally !vote “Wait” for US landfall, get told it is notable enough to post based on Cuba alone, switch !vote to support on an alt blurb about Cuba alone, then get told to wait again for notability (aka US stuff). ITN nominations are always fun… Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
you guys just don’t want to post it because Fiona wasn’t posted. That’s your opinion No, that's certainly not my opinion, and I ask you to strike that. I haven't even !voted, I just read the winds and came to the conclusion that nominating this when there are only two confirmed casualties was not the best idea.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
ITN is not the place to post unusual events like a country losing power. This is why we want something most definitive in terms of impact, like loss of life or scale of destruction. Masem (t) 21:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
By that interpretation, even if Hurricane Ian became a category 5 at landfall, it would not be ITN worthy until either the death toll is higher OR NWS does initial damage estimates (after it dissipates). Sounds like ITN needs to have a long RfC to determine what "In The News" means. International coverage and hundreds to thousands of articles covering the hurricane, with a large portion commenting on the complete power loss to Cuba is clearly "In The News", however, from the def you just described, practically no storm could ever make ITN, unless a dozen+ people are killed. I do foresee myself starting an RfC in a few days on this topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
ITN is about good quality encyclopedia articles that happen to be in the news. We are not a news ticker, regurgitating what are headlines, And since most weather events like hurricanes can really only be judged on quality based on the scale of their impact, that limits every such storm being on the front page. Masem (t) 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. We will be seeing the impact of Ian's devastation in the coming days and weeks.
— That Coptic Guy (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That may be the principle, however, I personally know many ITN’s that were posted with less than what this article has. Yesterday alone, it got 22,000 views. I am betting nearly 100k or more today. If that truly is the ITN principle, then this RfC in the next coming days will be extremely interesting and possible precedent setting. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

If you really want to play the “good quality encyclopedia articles” route, then Hurricane Ian 100% passes every possible ITN “good quality” checklist. An article I started, Zamfara kidnapping made ITN. Hurricane Ian as more international coverage, more article views, more bytes in size, more images, and is basically “more” or “better” in every possible way (even more deaths) than that kidnapping article, which made ITN. Stop stalling because you haven’t said a single reason that can’t be pushed back on why Hurricane Ian shouldn’t be posted to ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
P.S. Also, based on that def, once NWS posts Ian's initial damage total, would that make it ITN (even if it ain't in the news anymore)? "Scale of destruction" cannot be judged during a storm that is ongoing, meaning you are considering only fatalities for ITN worthiness on a storm. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Masem, you know as well as anyone there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS threshold here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
By tomorrow you will be wondering why we hadn't posted this sooner. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The rationale is similar to what Noah points out below. The landfall in Florida is expected to have as much if not more of an impact, so it makes sense to post when there's actual destruction to talk about. And on the hypothetic, if Ian turned north and later made significant damage in New England or Canada (to add to death toll perhaps) then we can update it if it was posted. But as it is with Ian, the "damage" that we have documented is mostly just the power failure which, in a hurricane, is not remarkable. Masem (t) 02:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Ongoing It's still doing its thing, we can agree, whether we yet know how to word "its thing" into a few short points or not. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Weather events do not make for good ongoing since they only last for days, not weeks. We only need to consider posting when reasonably full extent if damages are known. Masem (t) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    What's wrong with posting something for days? We sometimes do it with RDs. Way easier than us all agreeing on what constitutes a reasonably full extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    The only time we did Ongoing was during Cyclone Idai when the search for bodies was continuing to uncover dozens to hundreds per day. NoahTalk 22:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It already made landfall and may cause some casualties. Shwcz (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it made landfall in Cuba long ago. I hope that's what you're talking about. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Already had a big impact in Cuba, now made landfall in Florida. There are reports of 20 missing after a boat sank. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support first blurb. nableezy - 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, my support is based on knocking out power to an entire country. I dont really get how that isnt notable enough. An entire country's power grid was knocked out. Is it not important because it isnt the US or in Europe? nableezy - 16:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose until the impact is known. Will reconsider if significant fatalities and/or damage occurs.
NoahTalk 22:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
So re-nominate in like 2-3 days (after it ain’t a Hurricane anymore)? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
That is normal, yes. Like any weather event, it'll probably be over by the time we know how devastating it was. That doesn't make it stale. "After it ain't a hurricane anymore" is the perfect time to post a hurricane blurb.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip:It's still a fresh news story for a whole week after it dissipates. People shouldn't nominate here until fatalities have been confirmed. Even then, they shouldn't nominate for low numbers (ie 1,2,3,etc) since that's typical of any tropical storm. The Rambling Man is right that too many storms either get shitty nominations when they aren't really all that impactful to society like what happened with Fiona for the record or have premature nominations when we have no idea what's happening in the affected regions like what's happening here right now. This makes it harder for those actually deserving to be posted. NoahTalk 22:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The death toll from Fiona is over 10 times higher, and it's not being posted after two attempts here. If that isn't notable, I don't see how this is. Ian doesn't even seem to be breaking any records yet either, unlike Fiona. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    So one bad decision to not post something should directly cause another bad decision to not post something. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The recent Pacific typhoon (Typhoon Nanmadol) also wasn't posted; the death toll there was lower, but Ian is still a lot lower than Fiona - and unlike Fiona I don't see what records it broke. The only difference I see here is that Ian hit the continental USA. We have long since recognized there is massive BIAS in Wikipedia - but we do little to change it. Another example is the Gimbi massacre of over 500 people. Why that war isn't an ongoing I don't know. Perhaps we should rename In the News to In the American News. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
lol wut? Do you not recall the tribute to some old rich white lady that was the Main Page for a day last week? What does Cuba have to do with that anyway? nableezy - 23:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Don't you know she was the most powerful woman in the world? Doesn't Nfitz know Fiona soaked the Maine part of America, too? Won't somebody think of just posting these? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - these ITN conversations and arguement are so ridiculous sometimes. Obviously notable (but how can we post it if we don't know how many people died???) and the article is good. --TorsodogTalk 04:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure your point - did you see how much coverage there was on USA television about her majesty; are you suggesting that this was posted (despite being ITNR) proves there is no BIAS? Cuba would be a stronger point if the nomination preceded landfall on the continental USA. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - it looks like a pretty bad hurricane, and even if we don't end up including it on the main page, it's definitely impossible to deny that media coverage has ramped up significantly. Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Seems like it would've been nice if we had just put the hurricane season itself in ongoing... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – Article looks really great! Definitely well set up for ITN, well done :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – In Florida, 2.5 million without power, one fatality reported. [18] [19] [20]Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As suggested by multiple editors, can we get an admin to close this nomination as “no consensus” so it can be renominated in a day or two once the fatality total is higher? (WP:OR - As daylight is breaking, storm chasers are reporting multiple new fatalities and authorities said “fatalities in the hundreds”). Waiting until the fatality count is higher for renomination is the best.) Elijahandskip (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Are you kidding? The nomination has only been up for a day. It's completely disingenuous to close this thread as "no consensus" especially when you yourself proposed an alt-blurb. And on top of all that, in the same breath mentioning that authorities are reporting "fatalities in the hundreds". If WP:MINIMUMDEATHS existed (which it doesn't) this would blow that threshold out of the water. Absolutely no to closing this as no consensus. God damn, let the process run a bit longer. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Calm yourself, mon ami – it's just weather. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I am perfectly calm. Please don't ascribe demeanor to me based on written text. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. We're not renominating this after the storm has passed. The storm hit yesterday. There were days of mandatory evacuations and yesterday was wall-to-wall coverage of the hurricane here in the U.S. Number of fatalities, total financial cost of the damage, will be figured out in due time. Is this not a newsworthy event with a high quality article? What are we even doing here? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with previous two. No reason to close this now as the storm heads out to sea -- but is predicted to make a second U.S. landfall Friday. -- Sca (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Seriously…I get told the opposite thing EVERY TIME I write a new !vote comment. Not a good blurb, let’s wait until fatality count, its notable on Cuba only, 11 million power outages ain’t notable enough, 1 fatality ain’t notable, its notable. Dear God. I’m actually wishing I NEVER commented ever. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This is why you don't change your opinion based on what other people say. This is not a hivemind. Everyone comes to ITN with diverse differences of opinion on how this system should work. Speak for yourself and let an admin worry about interpreting consensus. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure. Support Alt Blurb for immediate posting. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
+1, one of the best pieces of advice I've seen here in a while. News is subjective and messy. We all have our own views on when a story becomes notable, and that's okay. There's always a lot of peer pressure to use whatever metrics everyone else is using to determine notability, but everyone should always feel welcomed to think differently.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support as per others. Was already notable enough after hitting Cuba, anything it does in Florida and beyond just makes it more so. Khuft (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Major hurricane with massive international impacts and news coverage, and it's my view that waiting for some arbitrary number of deaths is, to say the least, poor ITN policy, so post the blurb and amend it as needful. Jusdafax (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I e added an altblurb to reflect the impact on Florida including death count. --Masem (t) 17:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Nit: Should it be "makes landfalls in Cuba and Florida" -- ?? -- Sca (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. And as a non-ITN regular, I have to say I find it rather incomprehensible that a hurricane that has impacted multiple countries isn't considered worthy of the main page, but a football championship in Australia is. Insert eyeroll emoji here! And I say this as a football fan and as someone who lives in Europe. MeegsC (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It no longer takes a crystal ball to know if Ian will be remembered as a catastrophic storm. The death toll is already rising and it's unfortunate that it's almost certain to go up.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hundreds are feared dead. (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2, we have a good enough sense of the impacts at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Alt2, pretty big deal, and it's rather embarrassing that it's not on ITN at this point. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose The massive death toll predicted above has NOT occurred. If this is justified now, it should have been posted when it hit Cuba. Posting it now will say we think it only matters if it hits the USA. A really bad look. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    HiLo48, you do see that all three proposed hooks mention Cuba? Saying we should have posted it on Tuesday but today is too late makes no sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
That's NOT what I said. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I failed to notice the If this is justified now qualifier, which does change the meaning of what I thought I read. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I advocated for posting this when it hit Cuba from the very beginning. I still advocate posting it. ITN is a slow mover at times, and the storm doesn't discriminate as to which country or nationality it brings misery to. Your attempt to make this an issue of ethnic bias is in astoundingly poor taste. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mention ethnicity. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
The subtext in your message is about as bright as a neon billboard. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • HiLo, posting it now isn't being US-centric when nearly 90% (14 out of 16) of the confirmed deaths so far are in Florida.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:55, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This seems to be quite similar to the recent cases of Super Typhoon Nanmadol which hit Japan and Hurricane Fiona which hit Puerto Rico and Canada. They were nominated but not posted and so we should not post this either to maintain a WP:NPOV. Perhaps we should just put something like Tropical cyclones in 2022 into Ongoing as it seems like there's a continuous stream of these things. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ongoing would be short-sighted. September is the peak of Atlantic hurricane season, but there are no other active cyclones in the Atlantic right now. The closest one is Post-tropical cyclone 11, which is just going to dissipate in the subtropical ridge without doing anything.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No, it would be long-sighted because the timeline chart shows that there's always a significant cyclone somewhere on the globe. Just focussing on the Atlantic and then only posting when a hurricane hits the US is blatant Americentrism. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew. Fiona killed 27 and we didn't post it; as far as I can see the death toll is currently less than that. If it significantly increases then that is a separate issue. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    If a storm blacked out power in the entirety of say Belgium (around the same population as Cuba), would that not merit mention here? nableezy - 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Nope, that is an inconvenience, not a disaster. Storms and other weather events knock power out all the time, so that us routine. Even at the given scale. Masem (t) 22:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not routine for an entire countries power grid to be taken down by a storm. This isnt a neighborhood blackout. And it is likewise not merely an inconvenience. nableezy - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It's unclear to me if you are opposing or supporting User:Nableezy. Over 3 million people in Puerto Rico alone lost power with Fiona. A quarter of a million STILL don't have power. In Canada over 100,000 lost power in Nova Scotia (many still don't have it back) - and probably about another 100,000 in the other 4 impacted provinces. If those aren't notable, then neither is this. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I supported up above. Would have supported Fiona too. nableezy - 23:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
If all that really happened (which I know isn't the case) was just the power outage, that's the equivalent of a tree falling in the woods and noone around to hear it - it impacts a large number of people but just as other storm systems can impact wide number of people like heat waves or cold fronts - which would encourage editors to want to post these non-events. And until today, we really had no information on actual damages out of Cuba, in addition to the growing tallys from Florida. Now there's enough to start assessing this as a long term, enduring effect. ITN is reactive not proactive to news. Masem (t) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fiona has been renominated on September 24, meaning it is not archived until 00:00, 2 October UTC. Until that time, unless the nomination is closed, Fiona can still be posted. The original nomination was when Fiona’s death toll was 6. (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • So confused by all the recent “Oppose” !votes. Here is my opinion. Anyone who voted against the Cuba only blurb prior to US landfall made a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because Fiona wasn’t posted is making a wrong choice. Anyone voting against it because it is US centric is making a wrong choice (but still right that some !votes appeared US centric). Basically, this is a waste of time and those who 100% opposed a quick closure of “no consensus” earlier, you basically just doomed this discussion automatically to a no consensus without a good prayer of being renominated/posted. God job y’all. (Even I am at fault for saying wait in the first place and not instantly adding a Cuba only blurb). Feels like everyone in this discussion has legit made some wrong choice which is dooming it to no consensus. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    There's already a consensus to post. It's 15:5 support:oppose. Even taking into consideration that Wikipedia is not a vote, it's hard to deny that there is a consensus, and an overwhelming one at that.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    There seemed to be consensus at Fiona as well, and I don't see that posted either. Here's a thought - why not a single headline for both storms, which were near simultaneous. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, since Fiona is now posted on ITN. Sarrail (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    My thought exactly. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment -- can an admin please post this? There is quite obvious consensus. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, and this fiasco is a good example of why we should reform ITN and get rid of blurbs altogether. It doesn't matter if we say on the main page that Ian knocked out power to Cuba, or made landfall in Florida, or both, or neither. People aren't coming to the Wikipedia main page to find out the latest news about Ian or anything else. What does matter is that we have a link to Hurricane Ian on the main page, so that if people come here looking for that article, they get there faster, without having to search for it. All of ITN should be like RD: just links, no blurbs, no explanatory text, just links. Levivich (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment That's actually a really good idea (with a caveat of explanatory text if the article name isn't obvious). Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The view counts show that readers are perfectly fine in finding the Hurricane Ian page without it being in ITN. This reenforces our standard that we want to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, and most of the opposes here were based on the fact that the full extent of the hurricane couldn't be documented until it passed over Florida, that is, the article quality wasn't going to be there until that happened. Masem (t) 12:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Post ASAP. Thriley (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted After initial comments to wait for landfall and damage reports, consensus is to post. Some opposers cited lack of consensus at the time for Hurricane Fiona, but it was later posted.—Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Post-posting comment – Third landfall predicted today in South Carolina. – Sca (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Hilaree NelsonEdit

Article: Hilaree Nelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Missing September 26; Body found on September 28 बडा काजी (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Support, Article is fine for a notable person. Alex-h (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support article reads fine and is in decent shape. Skynxnex (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Such a short article shouldn't have an unsourced filmography.—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Prime Minister of Saudi ArabiaEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, my understanding is that he was the de facto head of government already, so becoming the formal head of government is no substantive change. Sandstein 07:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It's in the news, unlike the election in Nauru. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    You still don't understand how Candidates works. Nauru elections are ITNR, the Saudi Arabian PM election is not. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose cosmetic change in order to grant diplomatic immunity to Prince Mohamed, who, to all intents and purposes, already rules on behalf of his father the King. Khuft (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cosmetic change indeed. Tradediatalk 12:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Oppose – Not prominently covered. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who? Just kidding! But seriously, who cares who the Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia is. The post is largely ceremonial in an absolute kingdom. Shwcz (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Might've been more noteworthy if it wasn't just MBS taking on another title.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just Mohammad bin Salman formally becoming head of government of Saudi Arabia. He was already the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia so basically ceremonial.  Hamza Ali Shah  Talk 19:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ceremonial and lacks any real significance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not substantive development. Thriley (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

September 27Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Politics and elections

(Posted) RD: Sue MingusEdit

Article: Sue Mingus (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post; JazzTimes

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First reported today (September 27); died on September 24. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support American record producer and band manager who died in a Manhattan hospital aged 92, article's mostly fine, aside from two versions of where and when she met Charles. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • PostedBagumba (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joe BussardEdit

Article: Joe Bussard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pitchfork, WaPo, NYT, NPR, KTUL, Boing Boing

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Notable collector of pre-war American roots music. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support, but what the hell is the comment above?? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    The user seems to be a vandalism only account, or lacks competence. I've removed the message and given them a 4im. Anarchyte (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Kinda short, but I would have supported it if not for some unencyclopedic language like "had the collecting bug", which should be addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Muboshgu: unencyclopedic language now removed. I've also added a bit more to his bio. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It's fixed up and ready. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – article is well-referenced and now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. Marking ready. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Nord Stream leaksEdit

Article: 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​The Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Germany experience multiple simultaneous unexplained explosions and leaks. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Germany experience three unexplained explosions and leaks off the coast of Bornholm.
Alternative blurb II: ​Multiple underwater leaks spring in the Nord Stream gas pipelines between Russia and Western Europe in what several countries term an apparent act of [state] sabotage.
News source(s): NY Times, Reuters, Guardian, AP, BBC, DW. AlJazeera

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Sabotage is widely suspected (the NS1 gas pipeline was, pre-invasion, one of the main routes for gas imports to Europe) by reliable sources, but probably not confirmed enough for a blurb Smurrayinchester 15:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support major political event with possibility for environmental and/or economic trouble. The Kip (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nothing at the moment to gauge its significance. Further, if the leak's relevance tangentially hinges on the war, ongoing is there. Gotitbro (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just one of those freak accidents, I suppose. It happens. No one died, so it's hard to weigh the significance of this. And we should be careful not to automatically impose a POV without concrete evidence. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. We have no idea what this is all about. If more facts come to light and a bigger story develops, it will probably get its own article and we'll see then. cart-Talk 16:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support major political event of geopolitical significance and a possible escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that may bring in European powers. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As long as we are at "possible" and "may", this is not an event for ITN. I think we should stick to facts. cart-Talk 16:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's a fact that there are three leaks in two pipelines alongside Denmark and that the Danish Prime Minister has said it may be sabotage and that Ukraine has accused Russia of doing it to aggress Europe. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment a new article titled 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks has been created by Manvswow. Perhaps that article should be featured instead of the main one. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, It is not a major development now and still there is not enough information about it. Alex-h (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless proven to be wholly unrelated to the war, and still considered an act if sabotage, this either falls under the ongoing, or just the normal failing infrastructure department. --Masem (t) 18:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support major infrastructure blowing up doesn't happen very often, so notable regardless of the cause. Even more so if it was sabotage, what increasingly seems like the most likely explanation. 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    List of pipeline accidents suggests it happens quite often and most instances aren't notable by Wikipedia standards (for countless natural gas explosions, see List of explosions#2020s). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Interesting. So according to these lists this is the first case of an underwater pipeline blowing up. As well as the first case of two related pipelines near simultaneously blowing up. In other words, an exceedingly rare and thus notable event. 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, probably gremlins. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Is this a troll post or are you just childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:675:8D00:C059:841D:C8C4:4089 (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Neither; are you the long IP who removed it, the short one or both? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, Both PM of Sweden and Denmark has held press briefings where they claim it's been an act of sabotage and not an accident. From a Global Politics perspective, this is a major geopolitical event. Swedish PM has spoken to the German Chancellor, Secretary General of NATO, Danish PM and EU commission. Manvswow (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: NS2 never got final approval, and NS1 has been winding down for four months now. This just conforms to the trend, and needs greater significance for a post. (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Pipelines not in use get damaged, cause unknown" is not a notable enough item for ITN (Russia had stopped deliveries over NS1 weeks ago and NS2 was never in use). If (and only if) there are any further major developments because of these defects, we can then post those developments. Regards SoWhy 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Major event with large environmental consequences, all over the news. The Article featured should be 2022 Nord Stream gas leaks which I added in the Alt blurb.✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Much improved, Your Majesty! If I may implore just one thing more, might ye see that "multiple" be "three"? And yes, I'm being childish here, not trollish and entirely serious about the whole specification request part of this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait. As already noted, neither pipeline is in operation so political/economic impacts are likely off the table as things stand, and environmental impacts do not seem as great as suggested judging by the article. Probably worth waiting a few days to see if any of this changes but as is I don't see this as significant enough to post (save for the fact that this is getting a lot of coverage, but a lot of the buzz is just individuals playing the blame game. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Iffy.Sca (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Norway's drone alert seems significant too. Reminds me of the time in the Spanish Civil War when mysterious submarines started sinking ships in the Med. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless proven to be an act of sabotage not related to the current war. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – No longer iffy. Very widely covered, with several Baltic-bordering countries, plus the EU, condemning an apparent act of (state) sabotage. Favor Alt2 or something similar. – Sca (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
PS: Suggest we avoid the verb "experience" as anthropomorphic. Inanimate objects don't 'experience' things, only sentient beings do. – Sca (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not much volume going thru the pipeline even before this incident. So this is just another event in the slow death of the pipeline. Not important enough at this point to be its own ITN item independant from the ongoing Ukraine war item... Tradediatalk 12:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – In Alt2, the word "state" would be optional. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • support unique, unusual, interesting, ACTUALLY IN THE NEWS. I'm kinda baffled by the responses of some of the other editors who oppose this on importance grounds (even though its the presence in mainstream news feeds that should be the actual criterion), but who then routinely vote for posting parliamentary elections in Nauru and similar exceedingly important news pieces.
Preceding posted by IP user – Sca (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, who gives a flip what's going on in Nauru! But on a more serious note, what is the exact significance you speak of that you believe is being overlooked? DarkSide830 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The pipelines were not used, but the attack does have an economic impact. The expectation was that in the future they would again be used, and that kept the gas price on the futures market in check. Since the attack the price has risen. There is a lack of production capacity for gas, and even if Europe can import all the gas it needs, LNG is way more expensive than gas from Russia was even under normal conditions. Another reason for the rise in the gas price as a result of the attack, is that there is now the possibility that Russia will deal a truly devastating blow to Europe by taking out the gas pipeline from Norway, attack LNG terminals etc. Count Iblis (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
When you speak of the rise in the gas price, are you speaking of LNG, or the stuff Americans call gas? HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support EU, NATO say Nord Stream gas pipelines were sabotaged. Significant political, economic, and environmental impacts. Widely covered in the news.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No casualties. This seems to be just an extension of a war that is already ongoing. Shwcz (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - basically covered by the war ongoing item. nableezy - 21:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Only thing is the Baltic Sea is about a thousand kilometres from the battle fields of Ukraine; and no warring party claimed responsibility for this attack. ✨  4 🧚‍♂am KING  23:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    The subject is not mentioned in the Russian invasion of Ukraine article at all, so it is not covered there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thats a failing of the article, but sources are connecting the two. Eg NYTimes including it in its Russia/Ukraine coverage, same for WSJ. nableezy - 15:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – Excellent work on the article on this subject. The fact that "the incidents are likely to put a permanent end to both Nord Stream projects" seems to automatically make this ITN-appropriate. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Regardless of if being a (potential) part of the War, it has also had a big impact on European economy (gas/electric prices) and a environmental impact. Pardy (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC).
    It should be pointed out that at the point the issues were found, the lines had not be used for natural gas transport for months due to the way, the only leaks being from the residual NG left in the lines. Masem (t) 12:18, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Sweden finds fourth large leak. [21] [22] [23]Sca (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Major international news story with significant coverage, support per Sca, Pardy and Maplestrip. Opposes fail to convince. Jusdafax (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Agree with Jusdafax. Suggest we post this before it gets stale. – Sca (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    A majority of users disagree with posting this, and any of them (including me) can say supporters fail to convince. Nobody seems to have given a reason why this should be independent of the current ongoing coverage of the war, with multiple sources connecting the two. nableezy - 19:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Very widely & prominently covered. -- Sca (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • SupportWidely covered and its impact on the energy market and prices is rather influential. Its not so much about the war between Russia and Ukraine war, but the impact on the energy market.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

September 26Edit

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

RD: Wong Phui NamEdit

Article: Wong Phui Nam (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [24]

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 CMD (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: The short paragraph in the Personal Life section on his family needs sourcing or trimming. (BLP vio?) --PFHLai (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Removed, given it isn't actually about the subject. CMD (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for removing. This wikibio is more than long enough to qualify (700+ words of prose), its formatting looks fine, it has footnotes at expected spots, and Earwig has nothing to complain about. This is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks to you and Joofjoof for the additional cleanup. CMD (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Mark SouderEdit

Article: Mark Souder (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Journal Gazette

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Appropriate depth of coverage, referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 04:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "Committee assignments" section has just bullet-points. No prose. No sources. No idea what time frames the subject had each assignment for (concurrent for all 8 of his terms in congress???) or what he did while holding each assignment. This section looks rather incomplete -- apparently a common problem for biographies of members of the US congress.--PFHLai (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, this is the way they do them, and I agree that I don't like it either. I'll get to that in a bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Naoero parliamentary electionEdit

Article: 2022 Nauruan parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Nauru elects all 19 members of its parliament (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​After the general election in Nauru, Russ Kun (pictured) is sworn in as President.
News source(s): Pina, Naoero Electoral Commission, RNZ

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: It is quite difficult to write a blurb for a country with only 10000 inhabitants and no political parties. Article needs tons of work, nominating to draw attention to it. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support once expanded - I'd doubt the significance but I realize this is in WP:ITN/R, so this is not the place to raise my objections. Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Needs more prose, needs to have the links removed from the section headers per MOS:SECTIONHEAD, tables need "scopes" per MOS:DTAB. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but the article is 80% tables at the moment. The Kip (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Sadly, even the tables are not complete - only four of the eight constituencies are currently included. See also here: Nauru election results. In addition, it seems that a new president was elected by the new parliament - it would be great to have more prose on that too. Khuft (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I propose we make an exception and skip this one per WP:IAR. Tradediatalk 12:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    no. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose we wouldn't post results for a mayoral election for a small city of 10,000 people. As cool as Nauru is, they are tiny. 1779Days (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    and? You should know that Nauru is a sovereign nation. City ≠ Nation _-_Alsor (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Microstates, many of which are Pacific islands, are problematic. They are sovereign states, but their influence on the world stage is very limited because they're effectively the size of cities. I guarantee if Nauru, or Tonga, or Micronesia, or many other Pacific island states were on a mainland somewhere with the same population and land area they would not be sovereign nations. Whereas even a small country like Estonia for example has a much larger influence. I'd support changing the criteria to require a population of at least one million before its government change is ITNR. 1779Days (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm very aware this is ITNR, but I Oppose- not because it is a small country, but because this isn't sufficiently covered in reliable sources. No problem posting if this is sufficiently in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on notability - something I shouldn't have to say because the entire purpose of ITNR is to skip the notability question because change in government in a sovereign state is inherently notable. Oppose for now on quality. The most substantial section is the one which describes the electoral system, but there is little content about the election itself.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. The election is already over but there seems to be still no improvements to the article. Shwcz (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The new president has just been sworn in, so there is an altblurb. Joofjoof (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The quality of both the election article itself, and of the Russ Kun article, are currently sadly too low to merit posting. I hope someone might jump in and expand these articles! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support in principle once it is fully updated. While I understand and support IARing certain ITNR topics, national election results should not be one of those. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Article looks good now, thanks for your great work. Curbon7 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's time to face it, those results from Yaren and Ubenide just aren't coming back. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Support once expanded: Even if this isn't a very significant country, national election results should be included. I wouldn't have known about this if I hadn't happened to check WikipediaFR yesterday. I use Wikipedia daily to make sure I'm up to date on every world leader, as I have them all committed to memory. Moncoposig (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support alt blurb if the article’s expanded Excluding the elections of certain countries seems like it’d lead to a slippery slope. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Article expanded textwise, and result tables are complete. Joofjoof (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks Curbon7 for checking again. Pinging PFHLai and Stephen. Joofjoof (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. SpencerT•C 06:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tom Reed (American football)Edit

Article: Tom Reed (American football) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News & Observer; North Carolina State University; Miami University

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

 Bloom6132 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support Article looks fine. Teemu08 (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, Article is good. Alex-h (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Article is good and looks fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Posted. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Cuban Family Code referendumEdit

Article: 2022 Cuban Family Code referendum (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​A referendum on legalizing same-sex marriage in Cuba passes. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Cuba legalizes same-sex marriage and adoption following the passage of the Family Code referendum.
Alternative blurb II: ​A referendum on recognizing same-sex marriages and other family matters in Cuba passes.
News source(s): BBC, Reuters

Nominator's comments: Important referendum for the LGBT community in Cuba. I might have to rewrite the blurb. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Inquiry Is this the first (non-overseas-territory) same-sex marriage legalization in the Caribbean? If so, this is notable. Also worth mentioning in the blurb that the same referendum legalized adoption by same-sex couples.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, sort of. It is the first *independent* Caribbean island to legalize same-sex marriage. The other places in the Caribbean that have same-sex marriage have some association with Europe or the US. For example, Overseas France, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands; Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (Netherlands) See Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas -TenorTwelve (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It's also the first Marxist-Leninist or communist state to legalize it. I would say both factors push it to notability. @TenorTwelve: @Vanilla Wizard:. KlayCax (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Added an alt-blurb that also links to LGBT rights in Cuba, since pages of this type are typically ran whenever a country adopts same-sex marriage (and the article itself is in good shape from a cursory glance). Anyway, weak support as it's the first Caribbean nation and first authoritarian country to adopt same-sex marriage. However, the Family Code page needs to make its summary beefier and fix some citation needed tags. Mount Patagonia (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose there are more than thirty countries that have legalised same sex marriage. Not notable. Stephen 23:42, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
It's the first Marxist-Leninist and communist state to recognize same-sex marriage. That's what makes it notable. KlayCax (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The early Soviet Union deregulated such matters – see free love, for example. That was really progressive whereas the Cuban thing seems to be a huge bureaucratic list of regulations about numerous family matters. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Didn't the Soviet Union do so on accident via a technicality? Lenin (who opposed free love) declared all imperial-era laws null and void, which technically deregulated homosexuality for a short time, and then Stalin cracked down on it and the USSR would remain very hostile to gay civil liberties for the rest of its existence. It was certainly not an example of a Marxist-Leninist state intentionally granting rights to gay couples.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Most of these are in Europe or South America where it same-sex marriage is more common and less notable (hence why we blurbed Taiwan but not Slovenia).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Mount Patagonia stating that it was the first Caribbean nation to legalize it. Barring islands owned by Western powers, the Caribbean has some very poor LGBT rights. This is a remarkable first for the region.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose In other news the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow. From my perspective, this has become routine. If Saudi Arabia or Russia legalize it, I might consider supporting a blurb. But otherwise, this has become an endless run of "this or that country legalizes SSM" nominations. If someone wants to propose that legalization of SSM should be added to ITNR, that discussion belongs on the talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Cuba is the first communist and Marxist-Leninist state to legalize same-sex marriage. That's what makes it notable. It's not like Italy hypothetically legalizing it. KlayCax (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • AGF Support per the analysis of TenorTwelve and Mount Patagonia. If every election result is posted even when there isn't a transfer of power... this is a significant change. --Gaois (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once the "Voting" section is properly cited. It might need a bit more expansion too. The article overall does look very nice and should fit well within our ITN framework. First independent Caribbean nation to make the step is real excellent news! LGBT rights has always been an interesting ongoing story within Cuba and has been quite positive since the 1990s, but this is a great landmark. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    The more I read about this topic, the more significant it seems. Aljazeera notes that it "[allows] surrogate pregnancies, broader rights for grandparents in regard to grandchildren, protection of the elderly and measures against gender violence." I do feel like the article might need more expansion on the details on all these items before posting... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not important enough for ITN. We don't want to use Wikipedia for political activism. Tradediatalk 09:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    How does this fall under political activism? —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not. Wikipedia did the same with Taiwan in 2019. It's entirely in line with previous, established precedent on the issue. I'm perplexed by your claim that this is "political activism". News coverage isn't the same as an endorsement (for or against). KlayCax (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Major news, first country in the Caribbean to do so. Stop being homophobic and celebrate this victory for the LGBTQ+ community. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 12:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Hcoder3104: That is an extremely bad-faith casting of aspersions. No one here is motivated by homophobia. Please strike your comment. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • While I support its inclusion, that's a massive reach of an accusation to make considering the genuine debate above. The Kip (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Per Stephen, Orientem, Tradedia. Old hat [25]. – Sca (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • : It's entirely in line with the criteria established by precedent. Cuba is the first communist, Marxist-Leninist, and Caribbean state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. There's simply a multitude of reasons on why this is independently notable.KlayCax (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support With Cuba being both the first major Caribbean state and first professed Marxist-Leninist state to do most of this, I feel the notability meets the bar for ITNR (versus being the Xth European country to do so). The Kip (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Major news. Reporting on an advancement of human rights isn't "political activism". What a joke. —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless I'm mistaken, there never was a law against gay marriage, only a part of the constitution that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. That prohibitive wording was already removed in December 2018, approved by referendum February 2019. Now, in 2022, it's defined as a union of "two people", but is no more or less legal than it had been for about four years. I'm totally ignorant on the adoption angle; maybe that's a real change. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's a bit inaccurate. No, Cuba did not already have same-sex marriage before 2022. Despite the removal of the explicit Constitutional ban in 2019, article 2 of the previous Family Code law defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The changes to the constitution three years ago simply paved the way for this to be possible today. Note that most countries don't have such explicit constitutional bans on SSM like Cuba used to, yet most countries also don't legally recognize SSM. E.g., Poland has a constitutional ban on it, but dropping that constitutional ban would not be the same as legalizing it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    I didn't say it had them, I said its constitution already dropped the only wording that (implicitly) banned them. If there's some practical distinction between legalizing something and making it not illegal, it's too slight for me. And if you're saying the Family Code still defined marriage as between one man and one woman after April 2019, that's at odds with several paragraphs in the target article's Background section. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    The Constitution of Cuba banned same-sex marriage until 2019. However, other pieces of legislation restricted legal marriage recognition to heterosexual partnerships. No same-sex relationships were recognized in law until the passage of the referendum. KlayCax (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    So same-sex marriages are now recognized in Cuba. Cool. Added an altblurb, InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    A legally binding marriage is one that is recognized by the state. If it is not recognized, it is not legal.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, previous gay marriages were not legally binding. But before they were recognized, it was not a crime to perform or partake in one. On the other hand, the doing, providing and holding of many "progressive" recreational drugs has yet to be legalized, despite several Cuban laws presumably recognizing the practices. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    "Performing a gay marriage" when it's not legally binding is just pretending to get married for fun. Of course that wouldn't be a crime. Describing that as "gay marriage was legal, just not recognized" is just severely misunderstanding what the word "legal" means in the context of gay marriage. Altblurb2 is misinformed.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    It could also be seen as binding in the eyes of God before the state recognizes it. A sacred bond, not just gay fun. If you don't consider legal recognition of same-sex marriages and other matters the point here, by all means, ignore my blurb (but always remember, performers marry, partakers get married.) InedibleHulk (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support The first nation in a historically socially-conservative region makes this more noteworthy than if it was X European country, and I think it is worthwhile to note this in blurb that it is the first in the Caribbean. Curbon7 (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's only the first in the Caribbean if you arbitrarily discount the third lead paragraph of Recognition of same-sex unions in the Americas. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's the first sovereign state in the Caribbean to do so, every other one has been a territory/dominion of another country The Kip (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Is this a meaningful distinction, in a sexual context, or just trivia? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    Of course it's a meaningful distinction. The United States is not "a Caribbean country", despite owning territories in it where same-sex marriage is only legal simply because these lands are owned by the US. The Caribbean is a very conservative region with regards to LGBT rights. Never before has a country within it made the decision to legalize SSM.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's a very conservative region if you pretend the lands and people that make up its majority don't count because they're somewhat remotely administered (or not Communist, Marxist, Leninist, whatever). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Maplestrip and The Kip as the first country in the region and the first country with a similar ideology legalizing gay marriage. Also, it's only the third constitutional referendum in Cuba ever and the first after the 2019 Cuban constitutional referendum that adopted the current constitution, which is also noteworthy since Cuba has not seen the possibility of such participation (with the last one being 43 years before the 2019 one). Regards SoWhy 19:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support per previously established precedent. Cuba is the first communist, Marxist-Leninist, and independent Caribbean polity to legally recognize same-sex marriages. KlayCax (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
'Strong support' = support. – Sca (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Stephen, Orientem, Tradedia, etc. Nothing new. Just routine. Same-sex marriages are legal in several countries around the world.--Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 20:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kacamata. I don't think we need to blurb every time this happens. If this happened in Saudi Arabia I'd say blurb it. Thriley (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Not voting on this because of how charged the conversation has become, but I think it does not make sense for us to use region as context for posting such a blurb. Yes, Cuba may be the first Caribbean country that has legalized same-sex marriage, but that fact alone does not make this blurb-worthy in the sense that the Caribbean isn't some homogeneous group of nations, and we have no proof that the legalization of same-sex marriage in one Caribbean country will have any effect on similar legislation in another. I think if this nom were to pass it should be in the Marxist-Leninist context, not the regional one. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality I expect prose explaining the impact of its passing, justifying its posting to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per above. First in the region, sweeping effects for the country, huge milestone for LGBT rights. Davey2116 (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - elections are typically posted for every country in the world. The result is historic since it is the first Communist country to legalize gay marriage. Shwcz (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – After 38+ hours, consensus appears unlikely to develop. – Sca (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the !votes aren't that close (by my count 14:9 including the nom), but Wikipedia is not a vote and the longer this goes without posting the more stale it'll be. Not stale just yet IMO, I still see people talk about it outside of Wikipedia, but I agree it is slowly but surely getting stale.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support a major development no matter how many have come before it, and rare enough that we can post without worry. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose No prose results and the conduct section lacks references. Also, please remember that Cuba is still part of North America. Joofjoof (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose such legalizations are common nowadays. It seems to be legalized throughout most of the Americas. Unless some country currently punishing it with death penalty legalizes it, it shouldn't get posted. 2A02:2F0E:D619:3D00:417C:3EAC:70D0:F5CD (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – In terms of news, stale. – Sca (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Three and a half days and 2,300 words later, no consensus to post. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I count 13 supports - 10 opposes, with good rationales across the table. That's a rough consensus to post —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

(Posted) Double Asteroid Redirection TestEdit

Article: Double Asteroid Redirection Test (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: NASA's DART spacecraft successfully collides with the asteroid Dimorphos (pictured immediately before collision) in a demonstration of asteroid impact avoidance. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​The Double Asteroid Redirection Test deliberately collides a spacecraft with asteroid Dimorphos (pictured) to test asteroid deflection.
News source(s): CNN NYT JPL press release

Article needs updating
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Impact of DART spacecraft on asteroid Dimorphos expected to take place in about an hour from time of writing, nominating ahead of time since it is not only ITN/R (arrival of interplanetary spacecraft at destination) but also has received significant press coverage as the first spacecraft to alter the trajectory of an asteroid. [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 22:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Wait until it is confirmed whether it impacts or fails to impact the asteroid; will change to support afterwards. The Kip (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Support Successful impact. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support It's good to give people advance warning. I'm watching the Official NASA broadcast. The opposition of Jupiter is also worth a look but it's overcast where I am. Note that the launch was previously posted. This time, we have a cool picture of the target just before impact and there may be some good stand-off images of the impact to come. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, once properly updated. NYT reports that the test was successful. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the mission was successful, the spaccraft deliberately crashed into the asteroid. It would be good to have confirmation of the asteroid orbital trajectory change but I guess that will be sometime before that can be confirmed. Polyamorph (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Partial support Change to support - After it's been replaced by the official release (rather than the crop from a blurry Youtube video). The image is a composite of the images released. I'd still prefer the official release I linked to, but I guess this is fine. Renerpho (talk) 03:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Dimorphos is actually a Minor-planet moon, rather than an asteroid/minor planet on its own right, so I would consider providing an altblurb. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Didymos and Dimorphos are a binary asteroid system. Dimorphos is the "moon" in the system but is still an asteroid in its own right. Polyamorph (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support – The article is looking lovely and this seems very well-suited. I do see one or two sentences uncited, which should be fixed first, but the article seems mostly ready to me! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment ATLAS has published a nice GIF of their telescopic view of the impact. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support. Definitely notable enough and the article has been updated. However it could do with some tidying up - it's been used as an image dump, some of the prose is self-promotional, and there are a few {{cn}} tags for the new material. I've added an altblurb, which is both shorter and avoids the confusion of saying the impact is to avoid an impact. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once above issues are resolved. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - unique event in space history. Nfitz (talk) 15:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment What's up with the broken template displayed above? Renerpho (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Love to see space news on ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 07:20, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment 3 "citation needed" and a "needs update" tag outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support its been two days, the article is fine jonas (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak support Nothing has really happened yet. Shwcz (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support only once the "Course of the impact" section is updated. Several cn and update tags are oustanding, and this is the section that we are promoting. Anarchyte (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support I finished cleaning up the final tags in the article. I think confirmation of shift could work also, but it's unlikely to receive the same coverage as to flashy plume and livestream. I suggest posting asap. 2A02:2F0E:D619:3D00:417C:3EAC:70D0:F5CD (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Article looks good, posted a mixed blurb, may be a bit long. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think ".. demonstration of asteroid deflection" would be better than ".. demonstration of asteroid impact avoidance," as we are not actually demonstrating an "impact avoidance" with this test; the asteroids wouldn't impact a planet either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • @Sdrqaz: I used 'impacts' instead of 'collides with' since that was the terminology most frequently used in primary sources. Agreed about the repetition bit though. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

RD: Yusuf al-QaradawiEdit

Article: Yusuf al-Qaradawi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Qaradawi's website, The National

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Muslim scholar from Egypt, affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Article in good shape, except for 9 "citation needed" tags. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: He is one of the most influential figure among Muslim world. 3skandar (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support nableezy - 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait Many CN tags, orange "expansion" section, some wonky English, generally seems like a long argument about controversial things. The update is in order (no cause needed). Definitely famous enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once quality issues are fixed. The Kip (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I mean, quality issues are the only issues that exist when it comes to RD. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: Per above. Ainty Painty (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there remain many unreferenced statements and an orange tag on the biography section. Unmarked as ready. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Removed the uncited quotes as both uncited and mostly OR on primary sources, leaving the expand tag. Id say just remove that too, anybody can expand it without the tag. nableezy - 17:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
There still remain a number of cn tags, as well as a few major works lacking ISBN identifiers. DatGuyTalkContribs 17:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are still a handful of {cn} tags, and an orange tag asking for an expansion with materials on the subject's life after 2011. --PFHLai (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Izhevsk school shootingEdit

Article: Izhevsk school shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A school shooting in Izhevsk, Russia, leaves 18 people dead (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, Guardian, Reuters, France24, DW

Nominator's comments: At least 14 dead and 21 injured. There seems to have been a few in Russia in recent years but I think still comparatively rare compared, say, to the US. So worth a discussion on significance here. The article will need expansion before it is suitable for posting - Dumelow (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Support after expansion. We posted the Kazan school shooting last year (see here). Anarchyte (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Article needs further expansion but I definitely see myself supporting this! :( ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once expanded per nom and Anarchyte. Quantum XYZ (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support ... pending expansion. Very widely covered. – Sca (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once the article is expanded and everything is confirmed Mooonswimmer 12:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Article has bare minimum to post Sherenk1 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm only getting 174 words of prose, we tend to want around 500 for posting purposes. --Masem (t) 12:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support posting once expanded We don't even need to compare to the US. If this happened in the US, we would post it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 12:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    So much for not needing to compare. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Question Are TASS, Dmitry Peskov and the Investigative Committee of Russia to be believed on such things as casualty figures and allegations of Nazi-themed terrorism? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    If our normal RSes are reporting what these groups say. We have zero reason to doubt that these statements were made, but I would expect their statements to be attributed. Masem (t) 13:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    They're currently attributed in some places, Wikipedia-voiced in Events and only vaguely alluded to (perhaps with suspicion) in others, such as "officials" and "reported". It's not terrible. But it bears watching. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – At 14:00, this event led most RS sites (although NYT put it below a dozen other articles). All the RSs above quote official Russian sources. The lone shooter reportedly wore "Nazi symbols" or a swastika. That may echo Russian propaganda about Ukraine, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. Definitely looming large, no reason for us to ignore it. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose on quality. Stubish now, needs expanding. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think we have too many of these items. But I don't see how it doesn't get posted, given what gets (in my mind, unnecessarily) posted about such events in USA and recently in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, We have put similar incidents before. Alex-h (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – At this point article is a 235-word stub. – Sca (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Currently oppose on quality. Essentially two and a half sentences about the events themselves is too little for me at this time, given that's the topic of the article and what would be the subject of the blurb. As illustration, the "See also" section is about a third the length in words of "Events". A quick check of the sources, and other news reports, it seems there is little in the of information right now, though I assume there will be more forthcoming. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 01:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support on notability, not ready on quality per what everyone else said. Once it's lengthened to at least start-class and we have more information about the event itself, it should be good to go.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support once expanded per Vanilla Wizard. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – In news terms, getting stale. – Sca (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Looks more than a stub now as there was some expansion, marking ready. Brandmeistertalk 09:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – In terms of news, stale. – Sca (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • No, still newer than our newest item (26 September vs. Kipchoge's item from 25 September). Brandmeistertalk 18:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
      In terms of news, not in terms of Wiki ITN blurb order. -- Sca (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Unmarked ready Consensus is that this is notable for posting upon expansion. The current readable prose is 2046 bytes and 322 words. Need affirmation on whether this is sufficient. There was one earlier mention of wanting 500 words.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment – Alas, a missed opportunity. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Article is now at 412 words and looks okay IMO. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: