(Posted) RD: Ron Galella

 Bloom6132 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks fine, well cited, and generally no issues. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lyubov Panchenko

Nominator's comments: Ukrainian 60s artist, victim of Bucha genocide. KamillaŚ (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is in a horrible state, hold off on posting until the major grammatical issues are fixed and more sources are added. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support I have fixed up the formatting and grammatical issues with the article, as well as some sourcing. Will need another editor's opinion on it, however. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:38, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Article looks acceptable but could be improved even further. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good enough to me. Tradedia^talk 05:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite short but fine. Yakikaki (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: [1] Things mentioned in the intro are often expected to be explained in more details in the main body of an article. Yet, things such as her 2001 award were only mentioned in the intro but not in the rest of the article. Please re-organize and/or expand the materials. [2] (a minor technical issue that should not impact on RD nom, but may interest some admins) The earliest edits in the edit history do not seem to belong to this article. Likely errors from previous page-moves. --PFHLai (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved the 2001 award out of the intro and into the main body. If someone can add some info on that and explain what that award was meant for, it would be great. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Naomi Judd

Nominator's comments: Country music singer, member of the Judds. Articles needs a bit of work Masem (t) 20:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I’ve added references and I don’t think there’s anything left unsourced.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 19:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is too short for me to believe that it's complete. For one, the CBS obit gives her cause of death as suicide, but the article only mentions that she had suicidality. I'm also seeing here about a memoir published in 2016 not mentioned by our article. What else is left out? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Only as a comment that I see mention in other articles that her death involved a problem with her mental health and I can see why some may want to steer calling the death a suicide in that fashion. --Masem (t) 12:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is indeed short but should be posted. Jusdafax (talk) 08:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Article is short and could go into further detail about her career/impact but it's good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Not the strongest article, but it's better than when I looked at it two days ago and it's good enough for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mino Raiola

Nominator's comments: Football agent. After his death was falsely reported 2 days ago, his family released an announcement confirming that he's actually passed. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest blurb. First, because he was No 1. football agent in charge of many football transfer sagas (including ongoing ones), "the most recognisable football agent in the world" [1] top in his field[2]. Guardian's front page says "Leading football agent"[3]. Second, because his death was first reported by number of Italian newspapers, then such high-profile publications as marca.com and Eurosport. Then the news was countered, and reports started to emerge that he is alive, with his Twitter account being active and issuing a post. Today it emerged that he died. So this is the case of death being the story - unusual circumstances surrounding it. Kirill C1 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article gives nowhere close to the type of recognition that is needed for a blurb. Being the most famous at something is not a reason for posting a blurb. What transformative aspects did he bring to the field? --Masem (t) 17:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if he was somehow transformative in the world of sports agents, I wouldn't blurb him, regardless of death circumstances. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • He changed the game in football [4], becoming "the most powerful individual in the game" - the title of Forbes article "How Erling Haaland’s Super-Agent Mino Raiola Became More Powerful Than Most Clubs" speaks for itself[5]. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't use headlines and we also do not use Forbes contributor pieces as they are considered unreliable. --Masem (t) 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are lots of newspapers decscribing him as superagent, or world's biggest agent. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      He didn't die in any sort of notable/newsworthy way (which imo is a requirement for a blurb, if the person isn't at the Queen Elizabeth level of notability), and merely being a soccer bigwig is clearly not that. WP:ITNRD states that In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. 4iamking (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      He did die in unusual way: after reports about his death emerged it was denied on his twiiter, with him being angry[6], only to die two days later. Most major newspapers reported that [7]. Isn't it unusual and blurbworthy? Also, being the agent of Paul Pogba and Haaland, his death affects two upcoming transfer sagas Kirill C1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      That's more an issue with conflicting reporting I'd say. Dying from longstanding medical issues in your mid 50's isn't exactly that unusual or newsworthy of a way to go. He also isn't major household name, so in my opinion thats a negative on both of the possible criteria that would qualify for a death blurb. 4iamking (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first paragraph of his career is unsourced, and there are some other slight issues in that section (e.g. "He resided in Monaco." being unsourced and randomly-placed). -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose He was good at extracting more money for himself and his clients. No discernible contributions to new business techniques or models, unless we include being good at manipulation being a "field" of "endeavour/achievement". Also, pretty sure they was a rejection for Bernie Madoff being posted a blurb Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a common knowledge that he and his like changed a game to considerable extent (the most popular game on the planet). If not for pandemic, the transfers 150-200 mil would have been common now. He was textbook example of football agent that was criticised by those in game [8] . Kirill C1 (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "The super-agent died on Saturday aged 54, leaving an unforgettable legacy on football’s transfer market...Gamechanger. There is no better way to describe Mino Raiola and his impact on the transfer market". - from The Guardian piece on him [9]. I don't know, these seem strong words. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb flatly. There's a standard we have on ITN/RD and he does not meet it. I'm not even sure we would have blurbed George Steinbrenner.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: How's article quality? Is this wikibio ready for use on MainPage? Enough talk on blurbiness. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The article quality is completely fine, otherwise we would have had tons of opposes on article quality. It’s why everyone is only discussing whether he is notable enough for a blurb.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 12:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 21:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Georgia Benkart

(Posted) RD: Ralph DeLoach

Nominator's comments: First reported today (April 29); died on April 21. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support American football player, swooped in at the nick of time to help the Jets destroy the Colts in the winter of '81 before riding off into the sunset forever, multiple independent sources verify this and more. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, looks good enough for RD. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 21:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Kabul mosque bombing

(Posted) RD: Steve McMillan

Nominator's comments: Incumbent Alabama state representative. Kafoxe (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no major issues. Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Quency Williams

 BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is fine. Well sourced and meets minimum RD standards. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Neal Adams

Nominator's comments: Comic book writer and advocate. Article seems to be in fairly good shape (including the separate bibliography) Masem (t) 19:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Looks good in terms of sourcing. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Doc Strange. Also, although I'm not necessarily advocating for one, Neal Adams is probably one of the handful of truly transformative figures in the history of the comic book medium who might at least warrant a blurb discussion. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehhhh, he's definitely edge case for a blurb. We 100% blurbed Stan Lee as his influence was clear. Adams has a definitely influence, but its far more subtle and really only known to those deep into comics (eg refining Batman towards a darker theme than the camp of the 60s for example). There are definitely comic people that are getting up there in years that are more likely blurb targets than Adams. --Masem (t) 13:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In agreement with Wizardoftheyear on this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per all above Support !votes. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 20:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Citations are missing for a handful of his awards. He directed and starred in a movie? That needs to be sourced, too. (Or removed.) Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a reference for the film, that part's sourced now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All these awards should be sourced now too. It was a little tricky to find a source for the Goethe Awards especially, but I think we should be good when it comes to sourcing in the article now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New Prime Minister in Montenegro

Dritan Abazović

Article: Dritan Abazović (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dritan Abazović (pictured) is elected by the Parliament as the new Prime Minister of Montenegro. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Vacant0 (talk · give credit)

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: ITNR. He becomes head of government after the previous one was ousted in a vote of no confidence. BastianMAT (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will hopefully continue expanding his article tomorrow. There is still a lot to add and clean up. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Neither a general election nor an executive position, so not ITN/R. Not a particularly big story. Bio's not ready and the other two articles are mostly uncited. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not an executive position? From what I am seeing the prime minister is as significant as the president here. Gotitbro (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you seen the part of President of Montenegro that says he decides who can run for prime minister? That's a clear step above, from where I'm sitting, no "mostly ceremonial" head of state here. Also, in December 2010, we set precedent for not including the new PM in a story about the old one resigning, specifically because he wasn't the president. It was a long time ago, but I don't see us overruling that stance in the archives. Anyway, what is political significance if not debatable? To me, the president has more global power. To a domestic Montenegrin, the parliamentary leader might seem like head honcho. You think they're equals, and I respect that opinion. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As Prime Minister of Montenegro and President of the Parliament of Montenegro both omit anything about duties, privileges or functions, I'm not even sure who even really heads the government. But it says the president of parliament takes over commanding the military, proclaiming laws and representing the country inside and out if the main president leaves early, suggesting she outranks the PM. The new one doesn't have an article, though, so maybe insignificant to English Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is similar in the Czech Republic: the president of the Czech Republic selects the prime minister and he/she then proposes ministers to the president, who formally nominates them. The new government then goes before the Chamber of Deputies to pass (or not) a vote of confidence. If the president dies, his duties are exercised by the president of the Chamber of Deputies (or of the Senate, if there is no Chamber of Deputies) and the prime minister (all powers he/she shares with the president - eg. abolition/amnesty). Although the president has some strong reserve powers (partial veto over legislation, nomination of judges, naming of the board of directors of the central bank etc.), nobody disputes it is the prime minister who really rules the country. Pavlor (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the prime minister rule the country through any explicable means, such as some comparably strong reserve powers? If not, consider me the first to dispute the reality of his rule. I'm not the first to dispute the ITN/R applicability, though, that honour seemingly goes to Johnsemlak in 2010, the last time this came up. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @InedibleHulk:, please refer to Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items, go to Elections and heads of state and government; ”Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.” And per ITNR procedure, List of current heads of state and government, heads the prime minister as green and the executive which makes it ITNR. It is also important to note Montenegro is a parliamentery republic. [10] There is nothing to dispute here. BastianMAT (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  By my reading, the constitution lets the president administer the executive of the state and his office should be highlighted in green. But you're right, the list says otherwise and it's the boss in this system. I stand by my objection to the article quality. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't know much about Montenegrin politics, but assuming what Pavlor says is correct, it's a similar situation to the recent Shehbaz Sharif blurb. The Kip (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This gives me deja vu of the Shehbaz Sharif blurb (Prime minister ousted in a no-confidence vote and a new one voted by parliament). There are very few references in Dritan Abazović but once the article quality is improved, I will support this.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 07:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is well sourced and has no tags. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Pavlor. Also Im not particularly fond with supposed-consensus that less-powerful or supposedly-ceremonial head of state are excluded from ITN. Even when they are less powerful or largely ceremonial, they will have impact on that country's politics regardless and I am in favour of posting all changes of PM or President or monarch of any country even if they are largely deemed ceremonial. Nyanardsan (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ceremonial heads are that only and posting those routine changes on ITN won't be of any significance. Though monarchs (long serving or otherwise influential) might merit blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article seems ready. It's ITNR because Prime Minister is the person who holds and exercises the executive powers of the State. In fact, Article 102 of the Montenegrin Constitution attributes to him the task of "manage" the work of the government. There is no debate. The president relates to the executive branch by appointing its members. But this happens in monarchies (Spain, Japan, etc) and in parliamentary republics (Czech Republic, Greece, Portugal and half of the planet, tbh). _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article is good and this is an ITN event. Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Montenegro may be a small country, but it's big enough to push Elon outta of the box – for now at least. – Sca (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why is it OK for the main page to feature two virtually unsourced articles on obscure government subjects, but not allow famous recently dead if even one line, no matter how uncontroversially plausible, is missing a footnote? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's problem, please, InedibleHulk? Wikipages linked in boldface are vetted here on ITN/c and must be properly sourced. Not every linked wikipages are "featured", though. --PFHLai (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Abazovic's article appears fine to me, for the main page, neither am I seeing any unsourced sections therein. And from what I can see the opposition for death blurbs mostly stems from the introduction of "Recent deaths" in ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm talking about Prime Minister of Montenegro and Parliament of Montenegro. They have three citations between them. Apparently, that's OK because they aren't bolded or pictured. But for similarly styled titles, linked lower and without full sentences and bullets drawing attention to them, we have standards. It's not right, even if it's tolerated by most. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, it is not really okay, but more like "beyond our scope". In most cases, we focus on one or sometimes two wikipages at a time. It would be great if every linked wikipage can be fixed up before the blurb appears on MainPage. However, getting one article up to snuff often requires quite a bit of effort already. Do we want blurbs with only one link to feature only one wikipage? Perhaps such an approach can be discussed on WT:ITN, not here on ITN/C. --PFHLai (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Mino Raiola

(Closed) Depp v. Heard

(Posted) RD: Juan Diego

Nominator's comments: Spanish actor. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks good, maybe needs a few touchups. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it would be better if some more content about his professional career could be included. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Article needs expansion in terms of his career. Support Great work. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. - Cheers, KoolKidz112 (hit me up) 21:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article improved. Seems enough for me. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kenneth Tsang

Nominator's comments: Actor who was in several international productions, including Rush Hour 2. This may be difficult to update, but I still nominate. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Filmography and Career sections need additional citations. Please fix them. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Judy Henske

Nominator's comments: Influential US singer and performer, inspiration for "Annie Hall" character, folk-rock pioneer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: [1] Can someone look at the pic in the infobox, please? Not sure if the license is legit. Wondering if this pic should be removed from the wikibio before a link to this wikibio gets onto ITN-RD. [2] The lone source in the Discography section is a fan site. Not sure it's considered RS. Is there a better source, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the discography, I've now added a second source - Allmusic - which in this case is almost completely accurate as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the new footnotes, Ghmyrtle. I'm not sure if this is considered RS; if it's good, it may be a useful source to beef up this wikibio. This wikibio is long enough (800+ words), and there are no concerns regarding its formatting and the deployment of footnotes. IMO, this is READY for RD -- I find the photo in the infobox iffy, but I'll let the posting admin handle that. --PFHLai (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw that, but didn't feel it added much and is written in a very bizarre style, as though by a bot. I ignored it. I will personally be offline for the next few days, so any progress needs to be led by someone else. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks ready enough. Meets standards, I guess. Contradistinguishing 00:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Attention, please. I think this wikibio is ready for RD, except that the license for the pic in the infobox seems iffy to me. The pic was likely taken in the 1960s. Maybe another license is needed. Maybe the pic should be removed before the a link to this wikibio is added to MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 10:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted without the photo (which is now under licence review at WCommons). --PFHLai (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam

Nominator's comments: Malaysian Indian who was convicted of trafficking 42.72 grams of heroin in April 2009. Executed. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is in good shape. Would even be willing to consider a blurb, given the details of the death (controversially executed) rather than merely having died of natural causes. --Jayron32 15:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per Jayron. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe wait until the execution of Datchinamurthy Kataiah on Friday, and blurb them together. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 17:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind, Kataiah was given a stay on execution. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb Man breaks laws and gets punished because of it. Yawn. This man's death nor the circumstances surrounding it were 1) leading or 2) transformative. Kane Tanaka was blurbed because the circumstances surrounding her death (dying at 119) were transformative (in the case of genealogy). Does meet standards for RD though. (Also, ITN is not the place to make anything right, which the blurb appears to try and do.) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 15:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither "leading" not "transformative" are exclusive criteria for having a blurb in the ITN section. I looked at all documentation, and neither seems to be a requirement. --Jayron32 16:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given our approach for RDs, these should been seen as minimum thresholds for blurb usage. Death blurbs should be exceptional when RDs are commonplace now as other we keep fighting on bias on these blurbs --Masem (t) 22:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but a blurb is not an award we give for being Famous Enough. A blurb is a means to provide information and nothing else. It's not an endorsement of the person in question, it's not a recognition of value or worth. It's a way to tell people "something about this needs explaining". --Jayron32 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If a blurb is a "means to provide information and nothing else", then why don't we just blurb everyone on WP that has an article that died? That's right - because blurbs have extremely high standards. If Melissa Lucio were executed, I'd want to blurb that because she has a whole movement for her and against her execution. This man didn't. He broke a law that had capital punishment as a penalty, and he was executed for it. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb let's not lower the bar any further, it's too low. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Nagaenthran's execution is a major controversy in Singapore and has been for months. The fact that he was an intellectually disabled Malaysian Indian involved intersectional campaigns by many activists, leading to international conversations about racism, drugs and disability. It has massive connotations for the abolition of the death penalty there, and the loss establishes the firm rule the authoritarian Singaporean government stands by, which itself may also signal how successful progressive activists might be against Section 377A. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Elevating this to a blurb would be RGW per se, as routine enforcement of the law is not noteworthy. While I personally find such harsh persecution of the already marginalized horrific, this too is much more than the standard than the exception. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:11, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nagaenthran's execution is exceptional in terms of the opposition towards a routine enforcement of law. So much work had been put into his case especially, and it resulted in a straight loss for the huge movement. – Jiaminglimjm (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So the situation is still the same. There's no transformative element here. starship.paint (exalt) 02:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, not opposed to blurb. Quite shocking for a supposedly modern state. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Not important enough for a blurb. Tradedia^talk 19:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Capital punishment where a state recognizes it is not itself noteworthy (though its abolishment might be) when not of a known figure or not entailed by significant protests, rallies etc. Gotitbro (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, slight oppose blurb A country enforcing its penal laws for the most part isnt blurb worthy (unless it is such an egregious case that the punishment gets worldwide attention). I dont think this is that though, as SE asian countries are known to have particularily tough narcotics laws. If there is a blurb, I think it should be ALT1 (After friday).4iamking (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per Tradedia and Gotitbro. Surely we're not going to blurb every controversial execution? Nagaenthran is not a known figure. The potential addition of Datchinamurthy is even more questionable - are we going to blurb every executed drug trafficker? Read Capital punishment for drug trafficking, there are over 30 countries with the death penalty for drug offences in law, and hundreds of people are executed each year. starship.paint (exalt) 02:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Controversial executions unfortunately happen all the time in a large number of countries. This one isn't especially notable enough to overcome that. The Kip (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb like mentioned by many above, a country enforcing it’s laws is not blurb-worthy no matter how controversial it is. It could be notable if it was a well-known person being executed but this man is not well-known.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 07:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only – Oppose blurb for all of the reasons cited above. Not generally impactful. – Sca (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've flagged the article as ready for posting to RD. There does not yet appear to be consensus for posting as a blurb, but RD has clear consensus. I'd post myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED. --Jayron32 15:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted RD Stephen 23:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support both RD and blurb, since the case itself was exceptionally hitting at the centre of the global attention towards the case and it became notable even in the West NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Elvera Britto

Nominator's comments: Former Indian women's hockey team captain. Arjuna Award winner. Ktin (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (400+ words) Y. Formatting Y. Use of footnotes Y. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per PFHLai. Article is Y for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Klaus Schulze

Nominator's comments: German electronic music pioneer. Grimes2 (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as an important pioneer of electronic music. Jmj713 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality. Discography section needs additional citations.Support All issues have been fixed: marking as ready. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grimes2 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per Jmj713. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a {cn} tag on the sentence about his film scores. Please add REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Grimes2 (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Geraldine Weiss

 Thriley (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks to be in good shape. Adequate sourcing and length. Canadianerk (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Salvatore Pica

Nominator's comments: Italian artist and design entrepreneur Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—Very well-referenced in general, with the only statement that could still use a citation being: "and ones from his friend Lucio Amelio's Modern Art Agency." Otherwise, I think it's already fit for the main page. (Side note: do you think his parents foresaw his future as a prolific artist, seeing as they saw fit to give him a name like Salvatore Pica?) Kurtis ^(talk) 15:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, @Kurtis: would you mind signing your !vote? Thanks! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 15:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... done. Thanks for the heads-up! Kurtis ^(talk) 20:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, it's all good mi amigo! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 22:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short (249 words), but ok. Grimes2 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Decent enough for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 07:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Alabo Graham-Douglas

Nominator's comments: Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture, Minister of Aviation, Minister of Labour and Productivity, AND Minister of Culture and Tourism, respectively. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 11:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. No mention of his death in the body of the article. We need some prose update; a mere addition of a death date is not enough. Otherwise, the article would be fine for posting. --Jayron32 11:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jayron32 I have added some additions to the body of the article with additional sources that transcend a mere death date. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Looks good! --Jayron32 13:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Curb Your Enthusiasm. – Sca (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Meets minimum requirements. 2 sources are dead. Grimes2 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good enough for posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Has enough information, Alex-h (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 20:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shane Yellowbird

Nominator's comments: Well known Cree country singer in Canada, his death is being covered in all major networks here. Thank you to the updaters, who got to sprucing up the article before me, they rock! Ornithoptera (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well sourced and meets the standards for RD. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 21:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well-sourced article, and after my own review the article seems to meet standards required. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready for RD per above. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ursula Lehr

Nominator's comments: Pioneering gerontologist in Germany, even federal minister for a short time, remembered for better politics and more respect for the elderly as valuable members of the society. There was a bit of an article but focused on politics, and most references gone. There would be more detail in the new sources if someone has the time and more interest in science and politics. Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Satis. Grimes2 (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Meets minimum requirements. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the article is well-sourced. Vida0007 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Twitter purchase

Article: Twitter (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Twitter accepts Elon Musk's offer to buy the company. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Twitter accepts Elon Musk's offer of a $44 billion buyout.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Twitter accepts Elon Musk's takeover offer.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Twitter accepts Elon Musk's $44 billion takeover offer.
News source(s): CNBC, AP, BBC, WSJ, Yahoo fin
Credits:

• Nominated by Calidum (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: The agreement has to be finalized by shareholders but that is likely to happen. We generally post at the time of the announcement, like we did with Activision Blizzard earlier this year. Calidum 19:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "Rich man makes business deal" does not a newsworthy item make.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• altblurb on size of deal as that is also significant. --Masem (t) 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A massive buyout by an individual of an extremely notable company that has made headlines around the world is certainly a noteworthy event. PolarManne (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per PolarManne. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a major development for a globally influential company. Prefer alt blurb. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Widely covered and the buyout of an influential company is blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not just somewhat, but I would say substantially more impactful than the Activision-Blizzard deal, and ditto on the coverage. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A change like this for what is arguably one of the largest social media platforms on the internet, I believe this to warrant a blurb. Also, it appears to be well-sourced in the article. CaptainGalaxy 20:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since this is such a major deal with implications for billions of people, I created Elon Musk purchase of Twitter. Any help fleshing it out would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolutely unnecessary spinoff. It's a major deal but not yet shown on the order of the Disney/Fox merger. --Masem (t) 21:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just requested a move to Elon Musk and Twitter where the broader history of his relationship with Twitter can be discussed. Thriley (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Still not forgiven him for this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – After all the high-dollar acquisitions and mergers nominations ITN declined over the years - why is this one different? Because it's social media/internety/hipster? CoatCheck (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb Twitter is a major social media platform, and its perchance my Elon Musk is also something noteworthy. Redoct87 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- but wait until purchase goes through. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Significant acquisition, potentially affecting millions of users worldwide (including Remember Him?). – Sca (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Appears to be a consensus for posting. – Sca (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt2 blurb. Should include the Takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don’t think we need an image of Musk. Thriley (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt2 per Pawnkingthree, don't like the idea of this takeover and what it could mean for media control, but it is notable enough. I also agree with Thriley that Elon's picture is probably unecessary.4iamking (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt2 but please link the article for the takeover. DrewieStewie (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt2 the standalone article is the correct one to feature, Twitter is a gigantic mess. Picture of Musk is fine, since we don't post logos (though in this case an IAR might apply to the logo since Twitter is a non-corporeal entity). I don't like Elon Musk, I don't use Twitter, I mostly don't care, but like it or not this is in the news, and that's sort of our WP:ITN#Purpose. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support second alternate blurb per Pawnkingthree. Multiple sources show certain notability, and it's definitely been making it's way around the Internet population. iWillBanU (User:Mattx8y) ^{what did i fuck up now} 00:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No issue on featuring the new article with its expansion, but the blurb should include the 44 billion figure as that is what makes this significant now. What might happen to Twitter is well informed speculation but speculation nevertheless. --Masem (t) 00:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No indication that this takeover is more significant than other major acquisitions or mergers that we have not listed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt2 per above. It's in the news, which is literally why we exist. "Rich man buys company" is much different than "Richest man in the world buys enormous social media company". Cheers! Fakescientist8000 00:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The issue here is not so much the financial transaction but the political ones of cancel culture, digital authoritarianism and freedom of speech. It would be too ironic if we were to suppress this story. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While I am neutral on this posting. I agree that the significance does not hinge on business aspects as much as the political implications of it. Gotitbro (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not a huge fan of the usage of "takeover offer" or "buyout" in the main page blurb. Perhaps there's a better way to reword it? Such as "acquisition" or "purchase?" I feel the current wording is harsh and a more succinct candidate would be either of the two I mentioned. Ifrenkel (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic has been through several titles and is now Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. The word "acquisition" seems to have won. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull the Twitter board accepted the offer - but at this point, no shares have exchanged hands. Twitter is still a public company and there is no guarantee that all shareholders will accept the deal, not to mention pending regulatory approval. Juxlos (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  None of that is in conflict with the blurb we have posted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The implications for free speech are enormous. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why was the picture of Robert Golob so quickly replaced with one of Musk? Do we really need to run Musk’s picture? It could be up there for a while if nothing else noteworthy happens this week. Thriley (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thriley: Please read WP:ITN, to wit "The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb. The picture's caption and the parenthetical (pictured) direct readers to the context for the picture." The Twitter acquisition is the uppermost blurb, thus the picture will stay there until such time as a new blurb supplants it as the uppermost. --Jayron32 16:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting oppose, albeit reluctantly: in all likelihood, this story is probably more significant than the outcome of an election in East Timor or Slovenia, but we do not usually post business news on to front page, do we? True, it can hardly get any bigger than this—one of the world's largest social networks, albeit only 17th, is acquired by the world's wealthiest man—but I have never seen it before. If Tencent were to acquire Kuaishou, which has nearly 70% more users, would this make the front page? --Varavour (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think it would be more akin to Tencent acquiring Hawtai. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We post significantly large business deals measured both in magnitude of the deal (tens of billions of dollars a minimum nowadays) and the likely impact on the world at large. Eg if two capital investment groups merged at a value of $100B, but otherwise would really affect they business, we'd not likely post that.--Masem (t) 17:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I posted this as an uninvolved admin, but FTR I agree with the clear consensus. While I have often been skeptical of merger and acquisition business news nominations, this is obviously on a very different level for all the reasons that are making it the biggest non-war related news story out there. It's even pushed Ukraine off the lead on a lot of news sites. This is what almost everybody is talking about right now and I don't see any realistic chance that it is going to get pulled. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support per Ad Orientem. Whatever the reason, this was certainly the biggest story of yesterday and remains a big story today. As for "shares changing hands", the formalities of concluding the deal are not the newsworthy part, it's the announcement and reaction. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Per the above two; the story was in the news, which can be proved by looking at actual reliable news sources. All of the pull comments amount to "but I don't want this to have been in the news". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources not on personal feelings, and that holds here. The story was covered by the news at a high level of depth and breadth, and the article is in good condition. There is no other criteria necessary for posting to ITN. --Jayron32 18:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but pull the picture Being unreasonably and appallingly rich should not get you a picture on the front page of Wikipedia if that can be avoided. Either revert to whatever it was previously, or maybe somebody, like the one single non-white-male person currently listed there? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard is that the top story gets a picture, and as we don't set the order that news comes in by date, it happens that this is the picture that best represents the top story. Now if it stays there for 48+ hrs, maybe we can talk about a rotation, but otherwise, swapping it out because it happens to feature a rich white guy is a bias. --Masem (t) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as he's not an old rich white guy, I can tolerate it. Not wearing a tie helps, too. I think we've all been there before. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How very dare you! Don't be such a pratt. Some of us have standards, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  To be clear, there's nothing wrong with spotlighting old people in general or Kane Tanaka in particular. Just old rich white guys. And even then, they're better to look up to than birdlike corporate logos. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, his mug trailed the blurb by 12 hrs.[16] —Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support pulling picture on grounds that have nothing to do with Elon Musk's immutable characteristics. Buying a not so profitable social network might be notable enough to get you text in the news section. But more than that is pushing it. Connor Behan (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a done deal?: "Tesla shares sank 12.2% overnight, wiping $126bn off the company's value amid investor concern that chief executive Elon Musk might sell his shares to fund equity for his $44bn buyout of Twitter. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether a "done deal" or not, the story is still prominently in the news, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 10:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess if it all falls through we'll just adjust the blurb. And change to a less happy mug shot. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted): Kane Tanaka

Nominator's comments: Passed away April 19, Made Public April 25 4iamking (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could also y for a blurb maybe, considering she was notable for being the oldest living person alive (and the second oldest person ever) 4iamking (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD Nice article, nothing to complain. Grimes2 (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - One of the few RDs I recognize, and also this is a notable death. CR-1-AB (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD As CR-1-AB said above, this is one of the few RDs I can know at the first glance. RIP. Probably not on blurb per some pushback (via WP:BIO1E), but I'd support that. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 14:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  main reason I wanted to suggest it is because WP:ITNRD states that "If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." Being the oldest person alive and the second oldest person ever to live on this planet (and that being what's newsworthy about it); in my opinion that fulfil this criteria. 4iamking (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD – certainly notable and article is of sufficient quality. Despite BIO1E, I would likely also support a blurb considering the overall significance of her death as the oldest living person. LunaEatsTuna (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD and Blurb Borderline for a blurb in regards to being just the second oldest person, but also for being the oldest person alive for nearly four years is noteworthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Looks to be well referenced. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Discussions on merits of blurb may continue. --Jayron32 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Tanaka became the second oldest verified person ever few days before her death, last time this happened was with Sarah Knauss in the 90s so she is certainly a rare case/event. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, lukewarm blurb support There's always someone who is the oldest living person in the world, and every time one of them dies, it shouldn't necessarily be blurb-worthy, but Kane Tanaka is particularly notable as the first person to live to be 118 or 119 in the 21st century. Except for Jeanne Calment, who died 25 years ago and, at 122, is an outlier in this field, she's the oldest person ever. Every person in the world participates in some way in human longevity, and she advanced the field for all of us. So there's that. On the other hand, her longevity is the only real reason for her notability on Wikipedia.Ryan Reeder (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Only 35 wiki pages on the subject now. Gilbert Gottfried had 78 pages and was not blurbed. William Hurt had more than 60 wiki pages and was not blurbed. The most common objection to person being blurbed is that they are not known in the world. She is hardly household name. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason for why a blurb could be appropriate in this case would be due to the notability of her longevity, not because she herself is a household name. The guidelines provided for in WP:ITNRD generally state that RD's may be promoted to a blurb when the death itself (or the circumstances around it) are a newsworthy event. In this case, her longevity is about the only reason why it is in the news. 4iamking (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per WP:ITNRD section "Death as the main story" as stated by user 4iamking. I'd consider this a case of the individual's title and notoriety warrant a blurb. CaptainGalaxy 19:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Revoked section reasoning, still support blurb. CaptainGalaxy 20:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose blurb Blurbs are meant for those that were leaders (not necessarily of governments) or transformative figures. Living to an old age, on its own, absolutely does not meet that. Those reading "death as the main story" is when we are talking unusual deaths like Kobe Byrant's helicopter death or Robin Williams suicide, not death by old age. --Masem (t) 20:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  cough, "strong oppose" = oppose. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 22:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ny opposition to a blurb here is that it totally breaks the system we gave around blurbs. They are not meant for people who die of old age with little impact on the world at large. Simply being one of the world oldest living persons does not met what we have envisioned for blurbs when we broke out RDs and gave those wide allowance to be posted. Tanaka has not changed the world in any way and to give a blurb means editors are completely ignoring the system in favor of personal preference. --Masem (t) 14:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It could, and is, argued that Tanaka was a transformative figure in the field of gerontology. The discussion around her age (and becoming the first person since 1999 to turn 119). It is also argued that, due to the circumstances surrounding her death (once again, 119 years old) and the fact that she has WP:SIGCOV (she wrote a book!) and is generally notable. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 16:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, per Tanaka's article "Her longevity, along with that of Jeanne Calment, has contributed to the debate that the maximum lifespan for humans could be 115–125 years". TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually "Support RD " = Support RD only. And there are many votes with "Support RD". Kirill C1 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you're taking a jab at my support !vote. Well, might I add that I also ended it off with a support for a (then potential) blurb. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Support blurb Second oldest person ever, oldest person alive in the last roughly 25 years. For many younger Wikipedians, Kane Tanaka is the oldest person who has been alive in their entire lifetimes. 1779Days (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki page says she was oldest person for around four years. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think 1779Days means she was the longest-lived person since Jeanne Calment who died 25 years ago.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But she only became this oldest person since Jeanne Calment in 2020, before that Chiyo Miyako was the longest-lived person. Kirill C1 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Chiyo Miyako did not live as long as Kane Tanaka did. Tanaka got the closest to Calment. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb I did not have an opinion about this at the beginning. But after reading all the arguments for and against i am leaning oppose. Tradedia^talk 11:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb, moreso for longetivity record than simply the fact that she was the oldest in the world. DrewieStewie (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb but mainly because of her longevity record (the most recent one to reach 119 was Sarah Knauss, who died just 2 days before 2000); I was initially going to oppose, but Kane Tanaka's lifespan – a record in the 21st century – and her being the oldest living person for nearly four years, are noteworthy. Vida0007 (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is every supercentenarian blurb-worthy? How many were blurbed? Was Jiroemon Kimura blurb worthy? Chiyo Miyako, the previous record holder, and Nabi Tajima do not even have own wiki pages? How is that so? Kirill C1 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Every supercentenarian is clearly not blurb-worthy, but if the feat they managed to pull off is particularly noteworthy, id say it does warrant one. Jiroemon Kimura, being the oldest male to ever live did get a blurb, the last person to reach the age of 119 and achieve this feat died in 1999 before wikipedia was even a thing, it certainly isn't a regular occurrence and thus I would consider it to be a particularly noteworthy case when talking about human longevity. 4iamking (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Emma Morano also got a blurb in 2017 - she was noteworthy as "last person born in the 1800s."-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This one is another interesting case because Tanaka is the second oldest verified person ever a feat not accomplished since Sarah Knauss in 1999 (over twenty three years ago). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my support blurb is for the altblurb2, just for clarifying. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Alt II. --Jayron32 18:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Nowhere significant enough for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Oldest person in the last 25 years is notable enough. Davey2116 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb -- the second oldest person to have ever lived has died. I think that's noteworthy enough for a blurb. Also, I'm starting to think that the position of "the world's oldest person" is a cursed one. Everyone who gets that position eventually dies. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  On the bright side, our current world champion (whose ascension apparently isn't blurbworthy) wishes for death. At least two winters ago, she did. Maybe she's changed her tune now, with newfound fleeting glory to live for, but regardless, Weak Support for the old oldest woman's too-late recognition. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Clayton Weishuhn

Nominator's comments: First reported today (April 24); died on April 22. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Long enough (700+ words). No concerns with formatting or use of footnotes. This wikibio is READY for RD --PFHLai (talk) 06:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Spencer, Amakuru, and Black Kite: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can move this to MainPage, too, but I would prefer having at least one other pair of eyes from an uninvolved editor (not necessarily an admin) to look at this nom (and vote support!) before I do so. --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Gave this a look @PFHLai: -- meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Please promote when you find it convenient. Ktin (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kaushalya Madushani

Nominator's comments: suicide by hanging a day after being adjudged as best hurdler at Sri Lankan National Championships. Abishe (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article seems to be well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 16:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Article is fine, nothing less, nothing more. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Suggestion: The subject's date and place of birth, alma mater and coach's name are listed in the infobox with no footnotes (and are not mentioned in the main text on this wikipage). Please add REFs for these things. --PFHLai (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted. I was unable to confirm the place of birth and have hidden this from the infobox. The rest is now mentioned in the prose with footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 Slovenian parliamentary election

Robert Golob

Article: 2022 Slovenian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Freedom Movement led by Robert Golob (pictured) wins the most seats in the Slovenian parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP, BBC
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Tone (talk · give credit)

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: And the other election, green liberal party has won the most seats. BastianMAT (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While this exit poll may be accurate, this shouldn't be posted until there is prose and statistics for the result. I also ask whether the precedent for multi-party systems is to post the election result or the government formation, or both. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Election results are considered ITNR, precedent is to post the election result, see Czech election for example. Jansa has conceded so its done, but yes article needs updating before being posted. [17] BastianMAT (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elections are ITNR per se, so it can be published perfectly well regardless of the formation of the government. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait -- For more complete returns. -- Sca (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is in a bad shape. The timeline is list-like and ends about a month before the election took place. The parties section is weakly sourced. Too many issues at the moment... --Tone 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Elections are per se ITN/R, to say nothing of Europe's first elected Green government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Slovenia already was a pretty green place, with clean energy, high biodiversity and more forest than not. Even if this green party minority win turns into a functionally green government after the coalition compromising's done, what more could a reasonably powerful group of environmentalists hope to achieve? If one of the coal countries went green, I could see us saying something. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality the "Timeline" section should be converted to prose, rather than being bullet points. And no prose about the impact of the election results either. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks okay now, but as below, would put below French election, which is more widely covered. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Put below french election however. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tone:, alright, have updated the article, and results are finished, consesus is in favour for it too, good to go! BastianMAT (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good, I'll add some more about reactions and then I'm posting. Tone 15:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support great work! Good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting (though I edited some myself, but the support was there prior to my editing). Ha, I am pleasantly surprised we got the article in shape in time, yesterday it was a mess. --Tone 16:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As a side note, feel free to reorder with the French election when you decide to change the image. Tone 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone:, alright, great work mate! We managed to fix it up, amazing. Have added you as an updater, if you could be so kind, can you hand out the nom credits on my talk page? Trying to document them as you can see in my user page. Once again, good work from all of us. BastianMAT (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 French presidential election

Emmanuel Macron

Article: 2022 French presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Emmanuel Macron is re-elected President of France. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Emmanuel Macron is re-elected President of France, defeating Marine Le Pen in a rematch of the 2017 election.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)

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: And the world breathes a sigh of relief. Davey2116 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait the page says nothing so far in stats/numbers about Macron winning, just that he did in a few sentences at the end. Please fix this. Support Article has been fixed. All issues have been dealt with. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 18:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after updates Macron's is fine, the election article looks like its being updated live but its well-sourced for details of the past so just needs to get the rest sorted. --Masem (t) 18:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I and several others have added some more information to the article and cleaned up bare links, what do you think now @Fakescientist8000 and Masem:? eviolite (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait his victory seems to be based on exit polls predicting a win, not confirmed results. And we'll need the normal article quality too (e.g. prose summary about results, outcomes, reactions). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What you are seeing now is a little more than an exit poll, it's a projection based on counted actual votes. Historically this has been very accurate, and with such a margin Macron's victory is in no doubt. We post US presidential results prior to 100% completed counts based on broadly similar information. That said, we don't need to be in an unnecessary rush here. --LukeSurl ^t c 19:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At the time this was posted, per the Reuters article, Le Pen had already admitted defeat to her supporters. That's sufficient for us to use as an election result even though the full results won't be in until tomorrow. --Masem (t) 22:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Le Pen conceding defeat happened after I posted the above. And the article still needs quality fixes too. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait -- For more complete returns. -- Sca (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting now pending article quality Exit polls seem confident enough to avoid "Macron Defeats Le Pen". 20:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs)
• Wait until the official results come in. This is an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker, so we can’t post results based on projections and exit polls.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportI added the acceptance of defeat by Marine Le Pen.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Obviously a huge deal and a relief for Europe. In all the news. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Now that the results are in. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, as per Kiril Simeonovski. Even if Le Pen has admitted defeat to her supporters, a candidate is elected only after all the votes have been counted. At least, that's how democracy (is supposed to) work? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Martinevans123: 98% of the votes have been counted and Macron is up by 17%. If that's not enough to show Macron has been elected I don't know what is. eviolite (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah yeah, facts only need to be 98% true at Wikipedia, don't they. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support-but wait a bit He seems to have this one in the bag, but let's wait until tomorrow. 100% of results are in. Macron has won. It is undeniable. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, 100% reporting, clear victory for Macron, LePen has conceded. This should be posted now.  Nixinova   T   C   23:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Results are fully in now, and they have all been added to tables in the article by Scribetastic and myself, so those concerns should be alleviated. eviolite (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Vive la France! – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Enoch Kelly Haney

Nominator's comments: Oklahoma HOR member (1980-1986), Senate (1986-2002), Seminole chief (2005-2009) Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 14:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments/Suggestions: The section on his political career lacks info on anything after 2005. Did he retire? When and how? Some elaborations on what he did at his various posts over his long political career would be good, too. For his artistic career, sources are missing for a few of his artwork mentioned in the prose. Please add more REFs. And for an RD nom, there should be at least a line on the when, where, how, etc. regarding his death. --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Barbara Sansoni

Nominator's comments: Veteran designer and artist who founded the Barefoot (retailer). Abishe (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article seems well sourced.  Hamza Ali Shah  ^Talk 07:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Meets requirements. Grimes2 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Nothing more, nothing less. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 01:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 20:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Johnnie Jones (civil rights)

 Thriley (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Missing death update, some citations need formatting. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why isn't this article at Johnnie Jones? The person at that location is only borderline notable. Black Kite (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe not history book material, but the younger Jones was on TV and in stadiums, which traditionally helps kids remember. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't see any issues. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. No issues with the article. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 14:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: The subject's military awards, apart from the purple heart already mentioned in the preceding paragraph, should be referenced with footnote(s). I'm not sure if all the bare URLs in the various refs are okay. --PFHLai (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are not considered bare URLs, as they have accompanying text. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  True, those URLs are not as bare. Not used to seeing as much.... --PFHLai (talk) 04:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations for the subject's military awards are still missing. This RD nom will cease to be eligible in less than 19 hours. --PFHLai (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai: Awards are now sourced. Thriley (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new footnotes. --PFHLai (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan

(Posted) RD: Orrin Hatch

Nominator's comments: Long-time US senator. Article is lengthy and well-sourced; but a little more cleanup is needed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but there are still some cn tags that need to be addressed. All issues have been fixed. This article should be good to go. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 03:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment adding new cn tags. Far from ready. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are currently about 10 {cn} tags in this wikibio. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm trying to find a reliable citation for this statement: "At the time the 1988 Fair Housing Amendments were being debated, he introduced a bill endorsed by the National Association of Realtors to severely limit who can file anti-discrimination suits and to make the proceedings a private affair." The only thing I've uncovered that isn't a mirror of Wikipedia is Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, Vol. 46, and only a small portion of the text is available via preview, meaning I don't know if it directly addresses the statement re. Hatch's supposed bill and the NAR endorsement. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember, there are other ways to fix unsourced content. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @PFHLai: @Alsoriano97: I have fixed the remaining CN tags. This article should now meet RD standards. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 01:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fakescientist8000: I just added a couple more cn tags, in the last paragraph of the "U.S. Senate tenure", just before "Political positions and votes" subsection. But that doesn't stop the article from being ready. Good job! _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• New cn tags fixed. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (💬) 14:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good to go. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good, can someone please get this posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]