Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Ozzy Osbourne in 2010
Ozzy Osbourne

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

[edit]
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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...

[edit]
Shortcut
  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. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  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. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

[edit]

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

Sections

[edit]

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.


July 24

[edit]
July 24, 2025 (2025-07-24) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

2025 Angara Airlines Antonov An-24 crash

[edit]
Article: 2025 Angara Airlines Antonov An-24 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Antonov An-24 plane crashed near Tynda in Amur Oblast, Russia, 49 people died (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Angara Airlines Flight 2311 crashes in Amur Oblast, Russia, killing all 49 people on board.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A plane crash in Amur Oblast, Russia, kills 49 people.
News source(s): The Straits Times

 Wi1-ch (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis

[edit]
Article: 2025 Cambodian–Thai border crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Clashes between Thailand and Cambodia escalate along their border (Post)
News source(s): https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/asia/thailand-cambodia-clashes-border-intl-hnk
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Given recent escalations this could be post worthy. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notablity as this seems to be more substantial in scale compared to the Phea Vihear skirmishes, but I think we should wait for more details on the overall impact first. NotKringe (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but wait for more details. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to 2025 Cambodian-Thai strikes, support on notability RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @4-RAZOR 01 Rynoip (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

[edit]
July 23, 2025 (2025-07-23) (Wednesday)

International relations

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

RD: Kenneth Calman

[edit]
Article: Kenneth Calman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC and The Herald
Credits:

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: Scottish doctor, medical academic who was involved with devolution reform. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Arnold Palacios

[edit]
Article: Arnold Palacios (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ and Pacific Daily News
Credits:

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: Governor of Northern Mariana Islands, a United States territory. Article has no CN tags. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

[edit]
July 22, 2025 (2025-07-22) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Politics and elections

RD: George Kooymans

[edit]
Article: George Kooymans (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/george-kooymans-guitarist-golden-earring-dead-obituary-1235392319/
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.

RD: Julian LeFay

[edit]
Article: Julian LeFay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): IGN and GamesRadar+ and Metro
Credits:

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.

 MediaKyle (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN
Nominator withdrew –DMartin 01:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.


(Withdrawn)2025 Ukrainian protests

[edit]
Article: 2025 Ukrainian protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Widespread protests occur across Ukraine after the Verkhovna Rada and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy approves a bill modifying anti-corruption agencies. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Unusual wartime protests and the biggest since the beginning of the invasion. ArionStar (talk) 03:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

(Posted) Blurb/RD: Ozzy Osbourne

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Ozzy Osbourne (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  English musician Ozzy Osbourne (pictured) dies at the age of 76. (Post)
News source(s): Sky News BBC News
Credits:

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: Possibly blurbworthy Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb extremely notable death in the music world. RIP to a legend. harrz talk 18:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. A huge loss. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support one of the greatest metal and rock artists of all time having sold over 100 million albums and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Definitely worth one, or at minimum in recent deaths. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, notable in his field. (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:20, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment The filmography etc sections are dire need of sourcing as well as the discography and tours. I would also strongly recommend bolstering the legacy section, as I don't doubt his greatness to music, but one paragraph for that is severely weak for that purpose. Masem (t) 18:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, obviously notable in the field. RIP to a legend. Gommeh 🎮 18:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Very notable figure in his field - RIP. Article looks very comprehensive; wouldn't worry too much about filmography as that's not really his claim to fame (delete it if necessary), though discography should of course be appropriately sourced. Khuft (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb An extremely notable and influential figure in the metal genre. I don’t think I need to elaborate. Hungry403 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb - I might not have known much about him, but I think we can all agree that this is the kind of death that RD was made for. RIP - delta (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR:, the image needs to be protected from editing at admin level before it can appear on the main page. This is to prevent vandalism. It has been flagged up for protection and a bot will do this in due course. Mjroots (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - huge figure in the metal genre.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should post, legend in the music scene BKASEN52 (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: this article did not seem ready, quality wise. There are 11 citation needed tags, along with uncited filmography and tour sections. I do not think it should be pulled (as I dislike the whiplash from things "appearing" and "disappearing" from the mainpage), but want to note that this was a hasty posting. Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, needs to be pulled ASAP due to quality issues. Masem (t) 18:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19: (edit conflict) There was sufficient consensus for a blurb here, and ITNQUALITY gives leeway for citation needed tags (but not orange banners). Edit to add: Masem if you were that concerned with the article's quality, I would have expected to see an oppose in your comment above; that went into my determination of consensus. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not dispute the blurb consensus, but I doubt there was enough review on article quality. Only a few editors mentioned quality and all of them had concerns, which should have precluded posting until those were addressed. Natg 19 (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are just looking for the word "Oppose" and not reviewing the contents of the comments, that's not a good way of reviewing consensus, since this is not a vote. Masem (t) 19:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I appreciate the assumption of bad faith there. Of course I read your comment (and the rest of the discussion). But when I looked at the consensus, I saw your concern as a need for a few more citations and not as something you felt stood in the way of posting, while others appeared to have no concerns with the article in its present state. If in the future you feel that strongly, perhaps you'd like to reduce the chance for ambiguity and include the words "this should not be posted" or some nice shorthand for that. Perhaps "oppose". That would then be weighed in consensus-gathering in a way I presume you'd prefer. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can tolerate a few citation needed tags considering it's the Prince of Darkness. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 18:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff like this is why I think we need to have an improvement drive for older BLPs. I'm tired of famous people not being posted because of sourcing problems. Also, I agree with Liliana that we should be a bit more lenient with this one. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 I think an improvement drive for older BLPs is a great idea  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion about this on ITN's talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post posting support blurb Obits are calling him the godfather of heavy metal music. That pretty much sums up the fact he's at the top of his field. Article establishes that notability/how influential he was as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulled for now due to quality concerns mentioned above. I'm sure this will be fixed soon and it can go back up with a pic, but pretty please can posting admins check for quality before they go live, it saves these kinds of shenanigans. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why bother pulling it? It's gonna be solved so fast that it will have to be reposted anyways. This is a waste of at least four seconds of editor time. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it's an hour later, and now down to seven citations needed... I'm busy working on them but it's hard work as the article is far from stable right now and keeps changing under my feet!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: That goes against the explicit consensus here, but okay. It also assumes I did not look at the article, which I did. ITNQUALITY allows for citation needed tags. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One or two, not 11. Masem (t) 19:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, one or two is the operative term here. And "consensus" for quality isn't measured in terms of how many supports there are or how "important" the subject is, but whether the quality criteria are met. These are pretty much clear cut and with this many cites needed, the Ozzy article is clearly on the wrong side of the guidelines. I guess your view is different on where the bar lies, The Ed17 and the posting was done in good faith, but I think we need a situation where all admins are singing from the same song sheet on this. If there is genuine doubt it you want the guidelines changed then let's have an RFC to settle it.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In a nearly 10,000 word article, far longer than what ITN typically deals with, I find it hard to see the spirit of ITNQUALITY being broken by 11 scattered CNs covering ~1–2% of the words. I also don't see it as outweighing the strong support for posting at the time, especially as in my read no one had brought forward red-line concerns with the article's quality. That's where my belief that your action contravened consensus came from. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNBLURB says ... a few cn tags is usually not a barrier to posting ... Few refers to a raw count, not a proportional measurement. Perhaps, WP:ITN needs tweaking on what the community expects. —Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What we expect for quality at ITN should match what is considered quality for the other sections, at least from a lowest-common denominator aspect. Obviously expected Featured quality from TFA is not going to be the minimum (which would not allow any gaps in sourcing), but since both DYK and OTD require a well-sourced article (particularly for a BLP), I can't see the need to be changing this "one or two" that we have. Masem (t) 02:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, as currently written, 11 ≠ few. —Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, WP:ITN needs tweaking on what the community expects. The community has already expressed its expectation that it needs, at a minimum, an overhaul. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Support RIP Ozzy, but seriously, 2 important deaths within 5 days is crazy, so yeah, overwhelming support on this one. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:F0EA:9997:ADC3:9494 (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport for an article as long and extensive as his, just 6 cn tags shouldn't disqualify him from RD, and 2 of those cns are seemingly ozzfest original research from the early 2000s. Scuba 20:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of the filmography and related sections and the tours are unsourced. While we may rely on blue links for now, I will point out that a recent change at WP:V requires in line sources to be reused on material that could be challenged, so while things like the discography is okay (no question those are ozzy or black Sabbath works), everything else there could be contestable so needs sources. Masem (t) 20:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given how influential he was and how comprehensive his article is, I don't see the harm in letting a few cn tags slide. RIP to an absolute legend. Rosaece (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't agreed criteria for this, and you know it. Your misrepresentation is deeply unhelpful. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You won’t change their mind; they’ve disruptively used OLDMANDIES in I-don't-even-know-how-many votes. EF5 12:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There'll always be one... Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 12:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to used "agreed criteria" in our !votes, then 90% of votes will have to be thrown out in every discussion here. Honestly, I'd be okay with that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:26, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

[edit]
July 21, 2025 (2025-07-21) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Sports

RD: Thomas Anthony Durkin

[edit]
Article: Thomas Anthony Durkin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Sun-Times
Credits:

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: Article updated and in good shape --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdeep Dhankhar

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Jagdeep Dhankhar (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jagdeep Dhankhar (pictured) Resigned as Indian Vice President (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Indian Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar stepped down
News source(s): CNBCtv18 khaleejtimes economictimes.indiatimes
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned as Indian vice president Spworld2 (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Malcolm-Jamal Warner

[edit]
Article: Malcolm-Jamal Warner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety, ABC News
Credits:

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: Originally reported on TMZ, now on other sources. Article in good shape. –DMartin 18:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC) | Comment from duplicated nomination: American actor known for The Cosby Show, Malcolm & Eddie, Reed Between the Lines, etc. Well sourced. --GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Des van Jaarsveldt

[edit]
Article: Des van Jaarsveldt (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.news24.com/sport/rugby/springboks/oldest-living-springbok-dies-at-96-20250721-0688
Credits:

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: Rugby player. article is a GA. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support GA, as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been cited now @Schwede66:. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Dhaka plane crash

[edit]
Article: 2025 Dhaka fighter jet crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A fighter jet crashes into a college in Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing at least 19 people. (Post)
News source(s): CNN Associated Press
Credits:

 qw3rty 14:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: V. S. Achuthanandan

[edit]
Article: V. S. Achuthanandan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): msnGulfnews thehindu hindustantimes onmanorama
Credits:

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: Indian politician, former Chief Minister of Kerala and communist leader (aged 101) Spworld2 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready There are some citations missing in The drive to reclaim paddy land subsection, and In popular culture and Awards sections. Once those are fixed, then the article is good to go. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

[edit]
July 20, 2025 (2025-07-20) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Preta Gil

[edit]
Article: Preta Gil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNN Brasil
Credits:

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.

 ArionStar (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Japanese election

[edit]
Article: 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the 2025 Japanese House of Councillors election, the LDP-led ruling coalition loses its majority in the House of Councillors. (Post)
News source(s): NHK Japan
Credits:

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rushtheeditor the link is for the lower house in 2024 not the upper house, the correct link is here AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 20:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ishiba is resigning in August, as a result of the election https://www.reuters.com/world/japan-pm-ishiba-announce-resignation-next-month-mainichi-says-2025-07-22/ GodzillamanRor (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) The Open

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Open Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Scottie Scheffler (pictured) wins the Open Championship. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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.

 Night Grinder (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone moves the field into a a la 2024 Open Championship field, then likely it can go back up. Although the golf project needs to check on how to fix this again for this (ITN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorriynial (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late for me now, but if nobody else gets to it first then I'll have a look at this tomorrow morning. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've spun off the field to 2025 Open Championship field. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: José Maria Marin

[edit]
Article: José Maria Marin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): O Globo
Credits:

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: Brazilian politician and football executive. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) RD: Bob Bubka

[edit]
PROCEDURAL CLOSE
Article has been deleted user per WP:G5. WP:NAC. BangJan1999 21:27, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: Bob Bubka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://talksport.com/golf/3297556/bob-bubka-voice-of-golf-death-tribute/
Credits:

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: Legendary golf commentator who didn’t appear to already have a Wikipedia biography (so I've started a draft, hopefully someone can approve it in short order) Night Grinder (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making this nomination. Unfortunately, the article is a little too small to be posted. To be specific, it needs 200 more characters of readable prose. Please let me know when you believe the article has met that requirement. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

July 19

[edit]
July 19, 2025 (2025-07-19) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Béatrice Uria-Monzon

[edit]
Article: Béatrice Uria-Monzon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Opera de Paris, Le Monde
Credits:

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: French mezzo-soprano. Grimes2 12:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Altan Öymen

[edit]
Article: Altan Öymen (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Turkish
Credits:

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: Turkish journalist, author, politician. Has potential with some rewrite and citations. ahmetlii ✉ (Please ping me on a reply!) 20:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Yasmeen Tahir

[edit]
Article: Yasmeen Tahir (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press of Pakistan
Credits:

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: Pakistani actress and radio host. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Usyk

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Oleksandr Usyk (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk defeats Daniel Dubois at Wembley Stadium, becoming only the second man to be a two-time undisputed heavyweight champion (after Muhammad Ali). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In boxing, Oleksandr Usyk becomes the undisputed heavyweight champion after defeating Daniel Dubois.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: A remarkable sporting feat of a 38 year old boxer defeating a man ten years his junior, in his own backyard. Showing once again that in rematches against previously defeated opponents, Usyk somehow puts in an even better performance. Not that it wasn't obvious already to most boxing afficionados, but this latest triumph seems to be finally what the world was waiting to see before they would state it as an undisputed fact that Usyk is the greatest boxer of his generation. He is so good, it is now being suggested he could be in the top 5 greatest boxers of all time, possibly the top 3 once he finally retires (which he has no plans to do). He perhaps suffers only from a general weakness of the division, but that's hardly his fault. And tellingly, he isn’t just winning, he has been comprehensive in his dominance. He is rightly described as a magician and a master of his craft. And an all round bad man, fearless and fearsome. The fact he fights for Ukraine, as he beats down an assortment of tough talkers (Dubois said he was going to bring "choas", lol) is also a major plus point in terms of sporting merit. There's apparently not many "serious contenders" left for him to fight, only Joseph Parker and Moses Itauma, and only Parker can claim to be a worthy opponent. Even if he ducks Parker and goes for some easy money, perhaps giving the Gypsy King a third pasting, Usyk has already done enough to earn this kind of accolade: "Usyk is head and shoulders above any active heavyweight"...."Finding a current heavyweight that can match his all-round game has proved impossible and it shows no signs of changing."...."The triumph has propelled Usyk into a very elite category - he joins Muhammad Ali as the only men to reign undisputed in the heavyweight division on two occasions." Night Grinder (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe We need a photo and I've suggested one above which shows him with Zelensky for scale. His article is too long to assess easily and what's really needed for this is an article about the fight which is currently just a redirect. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs article. If this is to the posted then the linked article should be an article about the fight itself, not just Usyk's bio page. If there isn't an article for it then I struggle to see how we can declare it notable enough to post at ITN.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement that a separate article be made for any event, just a significant update to the targeted article and that article is up to quality standards with the update. And give the structure of Usyk's article, the matches have been described in reasonable details except for this current one (just one line summarizing it right), so it does need that update before this can even be posted. Masem (t) 11:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of the fight isn't in doubt. The significance of the event is to the man's career, so his biography is the logical place for an update. I will hold off doing that update unless/until that is the agreed most logical course of action. Night Grinder (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That update would be necessary for this to be posted. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously. So as soon as it is decided where it should go, it can be done. But I'm not wasting a Sunday writing an entire article when it clearly isn't necessary. But nor do I relish wasting an hour updating the biography if that's not going to be deemed sufficient either. Night Grinder (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say WP:UNDUE, but individual fights are detailed on Usyk's article, so I wouldn't oppose such similar treatment for this fight. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft support although I'm not big into boxing, from what I'm reading... and the vast media coverage this is getting... is that this is a significant ITN worthy accomplishment, although I do have concerns about the target page. Scuba 16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a spare half hour so I wrote a quick update for the biography. It's sitting there as a pending edit request, waiting for acceptance. Night Grinder (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality If this event is so important that it meets WP:ITNSIGNIF, then it would be notable enough for a separate article, rather than just a couple of paragraphs in the biography article. Right now the update doesn't meet WP:ITNQUALITY and the lack of an event article suggests it might not meet WP:ITNSIGNIF either (though neutral on this). Joseph2302 (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I've actioned Night Grinder's edit request to expand the match report. It's minimal but just enough for ITN, I suppose. Others are welcome to develop it further. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I'm clearly wasting my breath here. Night Grinder (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Clearly a very newsworthy achievement. (While an article about the fight would be good, I'd draw an analogy here with how we report on sumo titles, where it is the promotion to yokozuna, rather than the individual bout, that makes the headline.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although a standalone article is not a formal requirement, it is a strong indicator of sufficient notability for ITN. Whether something is ITN depends on the coverage in reliable sources, not subjective opinions about whether the record is extraordinary. Here, there is not enough extraneous coverage of the fight to justify a standalone article (at least not yet), much less a record of such magnitude to justify an ITN position. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment is a strong indicator to me that you don't have the first clue what the event being nominated actually is. There is a ton of (what I assume you meant by) "extraneous" coverage out there. [3][4] That coverage isn't about the fight, it's about the fighter that won it. What his performance means as far as measuring his greatness within the sport, and indeed beyond it. Night Grinder (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This response is unnecessarily aggressive. I recommend clicking on the ㋡ in Flipandflopped's signature.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a general rule, the top achievement in each sport should meet WP:ITNSIGNIF. Boxing is certainly as popular as many of the sports we post, but with the myriad titles and classes, it can be difficult to specify which achievement merits posting. However, when this problem impacts other sports, we have addressed it with more posts: 3 per year for marathons, 4.5 for golf, 4 for horse races and 7 total for the two codes of rugby. Crowning a new undisputed champ seems to be as good a standard as any for boxing. By my count, this is the 12th occurrence across classes in the last 5 years. I think that's a pretty good sweet spot in terms of posting frequency. The update to the target is sufficient for posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm no expert, but this seems important. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't Usyk already the undisputed heavyweight champion before this fight? From what I can tell, he became unified/undisputed champion in 2021 after defeating Anthony Joshua or in 2024 after defeating Tyson Fury.Nevermind, just figured this out. Usyk was undisputed champion, but vacated the IBF belt when he did not fight Dubois in 2024. And regained the undisputed title this weekend after beating Dubois. Boxing is confusing as there are 6(?) organizations that confer titles (WBA (Super), WBC, WBO, IBO, and The Ring, IBF). Is the achievement that Usyk is now heavyweight champion from every available organization? I am not sure if this latest match is particularly newsworthy except to boxing fans. Natg 19 (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still needs an article. Per above, if the fight is notable, then it should have an article. It's a big event with lots of coverage, so not a valid application of WP:NOPAGE. If there's no article, then clearly the "quality" criterion isn't met so this can't be posted. Would we post the the FA Cup final under the Crystal Palace F.C. page if nobody had bothered to create the 2025 FA Cup final page? Of course we wouldn't. Quality isn't met here, and the "support" votes above don't change that basic fact.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that analogy, the 2025 FA Cup final article would be dominated by discussion of things like whether Arsenal at their Cup winning finest, would get beaten by the current Crystal Palace team, or whether there is any way for any future opponent to defend the blistering pace of the Crystal Palace front three, or indeed if the greatest ever teams in history could have. Shocking that you could be this off base really, after everything that's been said above. Night Grinder (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conceptual support on notability, because I believe becoming the undisputed heavyweight champion should be counted as the top achievement in boxing; him doing it twice, IMO, is kinda irrelevant. But I do agree that an article on the match would enhance this nom, even if not a requirement. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being recognised as the greatest heavyweight boxer of his generation, and possibly of all time, is the achievement here. Being only the second man to be a two-time undisputed heavyweight champion, behind Muhammad Ali no less, is merely a way of dumbing it down. The second unification fight being when Usyk's greatness ceased to even be a debate in the boxing world, hence the nomination. A standalone fight article therefore adds nothing and indeed proves nothing. Not sure how I can dumb it down any more than I already have though. I get the sense that people here aren't even required to read a nomination statement before opposing it on such irritatingly off-base grounds. Night Grinder (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But "how" was he recognized as this? By winning the fight? By critical acclaim? Natg 19 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Night Grinder: Please read WP:BLUDGEON before commenting any further. Thank you. BangJan1999 22:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a section now in Usyk's article on the match, which is well sourced and decent enough for me to move to support. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the holdup?
[edit]

I tried to move on from this farce, but Andrew undid my attempted withdrawal since it has support. I now realise it had a lot of support, but nothing is happening now it has been unwithdrawn. Why? The handful of people opposing are showing no signs they want to acknowledge their errors or respond to criticism of their analysis.

This event does not need a standalone article. The fight was a relatively mundane affair, and that's the whole point. The fight, the final bell, was the moment the final holdouts in the boxing world admitted that part of what makes Usyk the greatest of his generation, and arguably one of the greatest of all time, is that he makes the act of delivering a fifth round knockout to the likes of Daniel Dubois, look routine.

His mastery of the craft is absolute, there's no worthwhile challengers left, only Joseph Parker, who like all his peers, lesser/former champions, probably doesn't have the first idea how to defeat the now undisputed champion, Usyk. So say the experts. This is all well covered by the media, all now busy with the meta question of just where Usyk ranks in the greatest of all time. Debating who from the annals of boxing history could have ever beaten him. Maybe only Ali.

You wouldn't dream of detailing that in a standalone article for the fight, the very idea is bizarre. So that's why I, and presumably everyone else, is refusing to create one. It isn't needed. It isn't the story here. Usyk's career is. It would be overkill to add more sources to the now updated Usyk biography just to prove what is blindingly obvious to anyone who looks. But if anyone still seriously still doubts the significance of the event as I have framed it, see the two links above. That's not normal boxing coverage by any stretch of the imagination. That is the debate, the current event, not the minutiae of the fight itself.

That only appears to leave those who think boxing current events are not of wide interest. All one of them? To that I can only say look at all the sports tournaments you already post as a master of routine. Boxing has no tournaments. Boxing has nothing of anything, bizarrely. Refusing to let the world know that there's an exceptional, generational talent now occupying the role of undisputed heavyweight champion (that achievement on its own being a major deal in boxing, but not even close to being the be all and end all of what makes Usyk one of the greatest) while making a big fuss about the world number one golfer winning yet another major tournament, makes Wikipedia look ever so slightly ridiculous.

In the common tongue, sh** or get off the pot. In other words, participate in a manner that shows you know what's being presented, or stand aside and let the majority succeed. If indeed there's even any time left to say the event is still current. Unlike in boxing, it seems if you just run out the clock here, you can win. Night Grinder (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, it's the tragic news that Ozzie died that's diverted everyone's attention. How ironic. He was great, for sure, but unlikely to ever be considered in the top 10 greatest musicians of all time. Maybe the top ten of his specific genre, arguably the top 1, but that's already the max/min that boxing pundits are suggesting is Usyk's eventual standing in his specific genre, the heavyweight division, once he retires, or God forbid, gets killed in a Russian air-strike. Night Grinder (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping this nomination. Even if there is a weak consensus absent all of your comments, passing admins which see this wall of WP:SOAP and WP:BLUDGEON are far less likely to see a clear consensus and post. Please stop. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 07:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Night Grinder - I agree with User:Flipandflopped Your slabs of drooling hero worship do nothing to assist this nomination. Ease up. Stick to citable facts. Drop ALL of your own interpretations of what has happened. You have said far more than needs to be said. Stop now. (PS: I can't stand Ozzy Osbourne.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the fact Usyk is now the greatest heavyweight of his generation in the goddammed nomination. Nothing here is my "interpretation", and as a Brit I should actually be gutted my guy didnt win. But that's sporting greatness for you. It transcends national ties. This entire process is a joke. People like Flip Flopped are getting away with blatantly placing their own interpretation, or their sheer laziness, over the already provided facts. Including the "extraneous coverage" he asked for. I provided it. Where is his response? Nowhere. Just this pathetic whinging, trying to claim I'm the problem. Total farce. This is why there needs to be a presumption of acceptance on perfectly meritorious nominations, ones where the opposition is not prepared to engage or even present a logical case. It's disgusting that Ozzy Osborne was recognised in seconds, while Usyk is treated like he might simply have simply won the school sports day, unless these tiny few holdouts are spoon fed the impact in a standalone article. Too lazy to even realise that's not remotely appropriate, given what is actually being nominated. A career achievement, not a mere fight result. And yes, the guy is also a national hero to boot. Ozzie, not so much. Night Grinder (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about Osbourne, but please read WP:NPA. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew reopened this because it had support. The only thing that's happened since, is the existing opposers staying silent or cryng their little hearts out because I've dared to point their tactics out. And now we also see one extra low value contribution from The C of E, who either didn't read what's been said in response to this idea that there needs to be a standalone article, or thinks it's really funny to piss people off by exploiting a clear weakness of this joke of a process where opposition can just be repeated ad nauseum, as if the rest of the words on this fucking page just don't exist. At this point, there's nothing elss to be done except insult them. They deserve nothing better. Night Grinder (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Standalone article created, then deleted
[edit]

I got so bored of waiting for absolutely nothing of substance to happen here, I decided to actually do what the opposition apparently wants. I created the standalone article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oleksandr_Usyk_vs._Daniel_Dubois_II&oldid=1302153892

It's not perfect, and it doesn't have even a fraction of the content it could have. But hopefully the version here is sufficient to show what a ridiculous thing it would be. Nobody with any sense, wants it or needs it, to understand the significance of it. It would be entirely redundant to his biography and the assorted peripheral articles. It didn't need to be created just for this nomination.

In time, with work, after summarising the massive amount of coverage, sorting the gold from the crud, it could be a good piece. But trying to create one in a hurry just to satisfy the handful of opppsers here? Stupid. Waste of time. Shit.

Perhaps that's why someone decided to delete it? Who can say, they left no explanation at all. Hilarious. This process is a total joke. Night Grinder (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and proposed shorter alternative blurb that also incorporates Night Grinder's new standalone article (which has since been reinstated). Would still bold Usyk, however. Can't say I support Night Grinder's grinding way of communicating, however. More patience with people that know nothing about boxing (like me) instead of bludgeoning and cussing might have been more productive in swaying the community here. Khuft (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, I've blocked the starter of this discussion as a sock of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/AttackTheMoonNow. Izno (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Hạ Long Bay boat capsizing

[edit]
Article: Sinking of the Wonder Sea (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Tourist boat Wonder Sea capsizes during thunderstorm in Hạ Long Bay, Vietnam, killing at least 37. (Post)
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, The Associated Press
Credits:

Article needs updating

 UCinternational (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support article doesn't have any glaring issues, and this is a mass casualty event being reported on by almost every major outlet: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Scuba 01:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in a better state now Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Al-Waleed bin Khalid Al-Saud

[edit]
Article: Al-Waleed bin Khalid Al-Saud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Post
Credits:

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: After 20-year coma he died 36, article is tub and should be extended. QalasQalas (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support although the article could use an expansion, it is still decently sourced with no glaring problems. Scuba 16:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @Scu ba well cited article. 78.190.159.49 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Newly created article does not appear to pass WP:ONEEVENT. Beyond being very short and not noting anything about the subject beyond his being born and having died, it needs a copyedit for grammar.GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Giora Epstein

[edit]
Article: Giora Epstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Haaretz, Times of Israel
Credits:

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: Israeli Air Force flying ace and world's top supersonic fighter jet pilot Chomik! (talk?) 21:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support no glaring issues with the article. Scuba 16:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

[edit]
July 18, 2025 (2025-07-18) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Martin Izquierdo

[edit]
Article: Martin Izquierdo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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: Mexican American costumer. Death reported 18 July. Thriley (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Edwin Feulner

[edit]
Article: Edwin Feulner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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: Founder of The Heritage Foundation. 240F:7A:6253:1:E528:5177:3896:713 (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rex White

[edit]
Article: Rex White (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NASCAR.com
Credits:

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: Hall of Fame NASCAR driver. His death announced on July 18. 240F:7A:6253:1:34A5:94E0:F817:B3C2 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks good. Scuba 16:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Velu Prabhakaran

[edit]
Article: Velu Prabhakaran (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WION
Credits:

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: Veteran Tamil filmmaker. 240F:7A:6253:1:5CEB:CE2:A024:A39 (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Reviewers needed) RD: Roger Norrington

[edit]
Article: Roger Norrington (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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: British conductor - I ran out of his steam with the discography but may be able to complete it later. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

[edit]
July 17, 2025 (2025-07-17) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Bill Neukom

[edit]
Article: Bill Neukom (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

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: Former San Francisco Giants owner. His death announced on July 17. 240F:7A:6253:1:5CEB:CE2:A024:A39 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Phoebe Asiyo

[edit]
Article: Phoebe Asiyo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12]
Credits:

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: Major female Kenyan politician. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Felix Baumgartner

[edit]
Article: Felix Baumgartner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [13]
Credits:

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.

 Thriley (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, sucks to see his name here. Support RD, although a citation needs added to the sentence detailing his death. EF5 18:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely relevant, horrible to see him go Rooves 13 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the notice above, Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 23:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article well cited with no orange tags. All over the news, shocking as well. We could also maybe consider a blurb? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'd say it's ITN/blurb-worthy Trepang2 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed as stale) Kensington Treaty

[edit]
Stale Schwede66 08:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: Kensington Treaty (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom and Germany sign a bilateral cooperation treaty, the first of its kind since World War II. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A bilateral cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany is signed in London.
News source(s): BBC, DW, euronews, The Guardian, Reuters, The AP, etc.
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I personally think this is significant enough for ITN because it is relevant to both the UK, Germany, the EU, NATO, Ukraine, but also the US as the UK decides which one to favour relations with. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 17:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This follows the recent state visit of Macron in rebuilding ties between the UK and Europe's major powers and this seems diplomatically significant. The article does a reasonable job of detailing the terms. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since when did we post bilateral treaties? This isn't nothing given Brexit but it's nowhere near significant enough for ITN. Imo we should only be posting these sorts of things between previously hostile countries, UK and Germany are already close allies. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The "first bilateral cooperation treaty between the UK and Germany since World War II" bit is interesting trivia, but this doesn't seem to be an unusually significant bilateral treaty. The two countries will have increased cooperation in defense and increased freedom of movement, but still not as much freedom of movement as when the UK was an EU member. Maybe a major agreement between the UK and the whole of the EU would be worth posting, but I don't know that this agreement was exceptional. Bilateral treaties are fairly common and very few get posted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong because I'm going off of talk page banners, but looks like we did not post the UK's bilateral deals with New Zealand, Serbia, Australia, Canada, Japan, or Vietnam, and it also looks like we did not post the UK joining the TPP. We did, however, post the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement which makes sense. These examples are all trade agreements so they're not exactly like what's being nominated, this one is more of a general friendship treaty, but broad friendship treaties also happen between smaller countries all the time and rarely ever get nominated, much less posted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree because the implications of this treaty are far greater than other ones that you have listed as not reaching ITN. This is because the UK and Germany are second and third in the amount of money given to Ukraine (source: [14]) . A treaty that involves a much closer defence partnership and a plan to do once a ceasefire starts in Ukraine is very significant.
    Furthermore, the small boats crisis has been pretty much the defining issue of recent UK politics, with it now being polled as the most important issue to voters in UK politics (source: [15]). Thus, an agreement for Germany to help the UK crack down on it is very significant to UK politics, and possibly the rest of Europe.
    Thirdly, the press have described this treaty (in combination with Macron's visit to the UK) as a commitment to form an E3 (UK, France, Germany). This is significant to the entire world order as Trump moves away from the levels of US involvement in foreign politics seen over the past near-century. (source: [16] [17] [18] [19]). It would be WP:CRYSTALBALL of me to speculate on how this will play out, but it is nonetheless important.
    I hope this explains my reasoning quickly JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 19:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have amended the article to discuss the significance of the E3 but obviously I cannot explain to the same depth as here as what I have written above is basically just my OR. If you read through the article again now the significance should become clear; I have done the same for the trade deals you mention above and cannot see their significance in the same way. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 19:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other Stuff Exists. What we've done in the past has no bearing on whether something is the correct course of action today. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN has always valued precedent. That doesn't mean precedent is always right or that we should never break from it, but we have always had our decisions to post or not post something be informed by what we agreed to be ITN-worthy or non-ITN-worthy before. Other stuff exists is from an essay on deletion policy. OSE is of course often used outside of deletion discussions, but I don't think it makes sense to use here. Valuing precedent is one of the ways ITN combats systemic bias. If we've never posted a bilateral friendship treaty between two "minor countries", why is one between two "major countries" different? You can argue that this one is different, but you would need to explain why.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that ITN should do things its own way or have its own concept of "ITN-worthy" subject matter is exactly why there is currently no consensus for ITN to exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really "doing things its own way" to value precedent when WP:OSE is not even a policy to begin with. Again, it's an essay about what not to do at AfD, which in turn has a whole essay about it (WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL) which acknowledges that OSE, while sometimes applicable outside of AfD, is not always applicable. This is one of those areas where it's not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Precedent is called out specifically as an argument to avoid.

    "Arguments that deal with the appropriateness of topics in general but also ignore the specific story being discussed are also usually not supported by the community. Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type (such as elections, or sports, or disasters) do not often generate agreement from the community. This also holds true for arguments based on similar stories which have coincidentally appeared recently, such as multiple elections on the same day, etc. Please assess and comment on the merits of each story on its own accord, not in relation to other similar stories."

    Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be applicable to arguments that focus exclusively on the "category" of the story while failing to make any comment on the story being nominated. I don't think that is the case here, and I don't think that block quote is intended to be read as avoid any and all use of past precedent, never mention that we did post x or didn't post y. If that's how it's intended to be read, there should be a discussion about adding a bulletpoint to WP:ITNDONT, because arguments bringing up what we did or didn't post before have always been one of the most common arguments at ITN/C and this is the first I've seen someone say that's an invalid rationale here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People can and do make all kinds of arguments at ITN. The point is that precedent does not seem to be stated as formal guidance for ITN and the WP:ITNATA item indicates that it is considered a weak argument. The fact that we didn't post some other deals is not a reason to reject all such deals. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last thing I'll say here because I don't like how my weak oppose spawned a big argument, but I couldn't help but notice that your rationale for opposing 2025 Kut shopping mall fire just a few sections below 1:1 mirrors my rationale that you're responding to here: you provide examples of similar events that were not posted.
You are correct that there is nothing written down stating that precedent does or should guide us, but we all are guided by it in nearly every discussion. We do care that other stuff exists, and that's okay. I think the big problem here is that it's not written down when it should be. Not as a hard rule that precedent needs to be followed, but just as a simple written acknowledgement that it very often is one of the deciding factors.
My reason for writing this reply is that, just the other day, I had an offwiki conversation about ITN with some editor friends, and one of the complaints that stood out to me was that, from one user's perspective, we have too many unwritten rules. Too often, editors who don't normally contribute to ITN will swing by to nominate something and be confused when it gets rejected for reasons that might seem obvious to us, but non-regulars could not have reasonably been expected to know about, because a lot of the de facto ITN criteria is just unwritten consensuses that emerged over many years while the written criteria stayed mostly unchanged, making it often times unapproachable for newcomers. I think addressing this would be a great step in the right direction.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:16, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable subject in the news, article is informative and of reasonable quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yes. ArionStar (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. — EF5 20:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. I feel treaties in general is too common for ITN. 83.185.34.240 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The assertion that this out of the blue treaty is inherently significantly is not borne by any factual basis of the situation, we should not be CRYSTAL advertising for governments. Gotitbro (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Gotitbro and Vanilla Wizard (and strongly oppose the very clickbaity Original Blurb). In general I'd be in favour of posting more posts on international relations. But this treaty is not really that major (and was barely covered in German media, as far as I saw) - the main reason for its existence is Brexit. Why wasn't there any previous such bilateral treaty between Britain and Germany (a dubious claim, BTW, as there were several double-taxation treaties / conventions, the earliest signed in 1954)? Obviously because the relations between (West)Germany and Britain were handled via the multilateral treaties of the European Communities, and later the European Union. The reason that there is even a need for a bilateral treaty is Brexit. Khuft (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Europe (IE: The EU and UK) are sleep walking towards forming some sort of parallel defensive structure to NATO. Scuba 05:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "only" a bilateral treaty but playing a role in the shift from transatlantic defense to a more Europe-centered alliance network. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

(Posted) RD: Bryan Braman

[edit]
Article: Bryan Braman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Needs quite a bit of work on his playing career before this is ready to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality article could be expanded and more citations should be added. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article since expanded to 4375 B (730 words). —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloxzge 025: Can you take another look now? —Bagumba (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Prime Minister of Ukraine

[edit]
Stale Schwede66 08:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: Yulia Svyrydenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Verkhovna Rada appoints Yulia Svyrydenko (pictured) as Prime Minister of Ukraine, succeeding Denys Shmyhal. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
 ArionStar (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ITNR, as the PM of Ukraine does not hold primary political power (per ITNR: administer the executive of their respective state/government). President Zelenskyy is the main office holder for Ukraine. Natg 19 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The prime minister presides over the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which is the highest body of the executive branch of the Ukrainian government." The prime minister administers the executive of the Ukrainian government, so I don't know what the argument against this is. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support still a change in head of government. Scuba 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, target article is hardly more than a stub and is almost solely WP:PROSELINE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

(Posted) 2025 Kut shopping mall fire

[edit]
Article: 2025 Kut shopping mall fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A fire at a shopping mall in Kut, Wasit Governorate, Iraq, kills at least 69 people. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: As we posted the Kočani nightclub fire and 2025 Kartalkaya hotel fire. ArionStar (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support on notability, oppose on quality. I'm working to improve the article. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, needs an aftermath section at least Kowal2701 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as blurb) RD: Connie Francis

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Connie Francis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  The first woman to top the Hot 100, Connie Francis (pictured) dies at the age of 87. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American singer Connie Francis (pictured), the first woman to reach the top on the Billboard Hot 100, dies at the age of 87.
News source(s): People.com, Yahoo News UK
Credits:

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 singer and actress known for "Who's Sorry Now?" and "Pretty Little Baby". ItsShandog (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main batch of 11 {{cn}} was made just one minute after a different edit. This indicates that the tag bombing was done in a mechanical way without even reading or digesting the text, let alone looking for sources if they were actually needed. Was a script used? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those cns incorrect? I see no issue with tagging "citation needed" for statements that need references, whether by script or otherwise. Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was certainly incorrect, as attribution and sourcing is already provided within the text. As the others appear to have been placed mechanically and speedily without taking time to consider the specifics of each case, they contravene the best practice guidance:"Tag thoughtfully. Avoid "hit-and-run" or pointed tagging...". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mention that you added all those CN tags would, however, have been the transparent thing to do when you mentioned them. Now, it seems like you tried to actively torpedo the blurb nomination (with which I disagree, BTW). Khuft (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on her for not playing rounders. 83.216.129.196 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, viral worldwide, specifically on TikTok. ArionStar (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb: A lot of people only know her today because of "Pretty Little Baby" as it went viral, not sure about how much of an impact she created in the past that would make for a blurb. Tofusaurus (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has several photos but few of them are portraits. The lead photo seems best because it shows the subject in her prime. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability Per above. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 08:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I think RD is fine and blurbs should only be death as the story, but if we're doing this, I still participate in it. While the height of her career is long-forgotten, and a song going viral on TikTok alone should never raise someone's career notability to blurb level, when reflecting on her career she was undoubtedly the height of women's pop music at the time. As her career coincided with the advent of pop being truly international, there are tangible ways to measure this - all of which are sourced in the article. The section "International recording star" makes a good argument for why Francis raises to the level of warranting a death blurb for an exceptional career. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I commented, but I admit I wouldn't be posting this regardless. After all, posting this but not posting (amongst many, many examples in the last few years) Little Richard, Mario Zagallo or Jacques Delors shows that ITN is, as said above, "out of control and subject to too much systemic bias". It's time to kick death blurbs off the ticker completely (well, it's probably time to get rid of ITN completely, but that's a separate discussion). Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted as blurb There's rough consensus for a blurb, with two-thirds of those expressing a non-neutral opinion favouring a blurb. Whether RD blurbs are "out of control" might be worthy of a discussion elsewhere. Schwede66 18:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and agreed. Seeing the blurb, in its final form, reads appropriate and befitting ITN. Good discussion all. CoatCheck (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support blurb Article in good shape and being the first woman to reach the top on the Billboard Hot 100 clearly cements her as an influential singer/figure in her field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - probably irrelevant now as already posted, but I don't really see that she's notable enough for a blurb. Everyone's fixating on the "first woman to top the Hot 100" stat, but the chart was only founded two years earlier so in a sense someone had to take that honour at some point, and it's not like she's head and shoulders above any other chart-topping artist.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She is top of the field, that is what matters for the blurb. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb due to notability (both in terms of legacy and recently, thanks to being rediscovered on TikTok) and per my longstanding arguments on broadening what ITN posts to ensure readers continue to find value in the main page. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment not opposed to this being posted but do wish the article had a clear place, besides the lede, where her achievements in music and legacy were summarized (with sources) to show objectively why she was a major figure. A lot of nominated blurbs rely on editor handwavinf claims of importance, when including sourced claims within a clear section helps far better for justifying a blurb.Masem (t) 21:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Pretty little baby BilboBeggins (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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 [http://example.com] 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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1302259320"