Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
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.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
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]
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.
Headers[edit]
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]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
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.
April 24
[edit]
April 24, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
April 23
[edit]
April 23, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
|
RD: Steve "Mongo" McMichael
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN, New York Times/The Athletic
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
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 NFL player and WCW pro wrestler. Article needs a tiny bit of work but is generally in good shape. The Kip (contribs) 23:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The wrestling kayfabe is presented as factual. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson I don't see what you're talking about - it's written as a description of storyline, same as any other wrestler's page. The Kip (contribs) 16:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality numerous quality concerns here. There is uncited text in the lead which isn't mentioned elsewhere in the body of the article. He had a 15 year American football career, yet our section on it is short and comprised mostly of stats. Wrestling career is slightly in-universe, but this is least of the issues. And there's an orange tagged section. All in all, nowhere near meeting WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) 2025 Istanbul earthquake
[edit]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.
Blurb: A magnitude-6.2 earthquake (map of the epicenter pictured) struck the Sea of Marmara, leaving at least 272 people injured and damage in Istanbul and across the region. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
- Oppose - No fatalities and I'm not seeing reports of major damage as of now. The response is the biggest story right now, and I don't see much merit in this story as-is right now. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Departure. Thankfully seems to have had a comparatively minimal impact, versus the earthquakes we've posted before. The Kip (contribs) 16:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - no fatalities, relatively minor quake, damage appears minor. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for more information, were there any fatalities that haven't been reported yet? User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 19:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
April 22
[edit]
April 22, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Keith Stackpole
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and Jcok380 (talk · give credit)
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.
Happily888 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Much of the biography section is unsourced. The Kip (contribs) 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
2025 Boston Marathon
[edit]Blurb: Over 30,000 runners compete in the Boston Marathon. Sharon Lokedi (pictured) beats the women's course record with a time of 2:17:22, while John Korir (men's division), Marcel Hug (men's wheelchair division), and Susannah Scaroni (women's wheelchair division) win their respective divisions. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Thousands of runners complete the Boston Marathon. John Korir, Sharon Lokedi (pictured), Marcel Hug, and Susannah Scaroni win their respective divisions, with Lokedi breaking the women's course record.
Alternative blurb II: Over 30,000 runners compete in the Boston Marathon. Sharon Lokedi (pictured) beats the women's course record with a time of 2:17:22, while John Korir wins the men's division with a time of 2:04:45.
Alternative blurb III: At the Boston Marathon, Sharon Lokedi (pictured) and John Korir win their respective divisions.
Alternative blurb IV: Sharon Lokedi (pictured) and John Korir win their respective divisions at the Boston Marathon.
News source(s): CBS, WCVB
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: per WP:ITN/R#Marathons, and a course record was broken Ahuman00 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment We usually only cover the men's and women's winners, not the other divisions, simply to keep the blurb brief. Masem (t) 19:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Added altblurb2 with this in mind. Ahuman00 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's still too complex. Usually it's something like "At the Boston Marathon, X wins the men's division and Y wins the women's." including how many participated is too much for how brief we should be. Masem (t) 19:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Added ab3. (Sorry, still new to this whole thing) Ahuman00 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's still too complex. Usually it's something like "At the Boston Marathon, X wins the men's division and Y wins the women's." including how many participated is too much for how brief we should be. Masem (t) 19:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Added altblurb2 with this in mind. Ahuman00 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- John Korir is a disambig, so I redirected to John Korir (born 1996) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's my bad, I'm all over today. Added image caption and bolded the article title in blurbs. Ahuman00 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Added alt blurb 4. Natg 19 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Alt-Blurb 4 since it's concise. After a few days switch to John Korir's picture. 23:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harizotoh9 (talk • contribs)
- For the alt photo of Korir, I'd suggest John Korir.jpg on Commons. Left guide (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- How long do we expect this to be on ITN, if accepted? Ahuman00 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Impossible to predict with certainty, but usually a few days, possibly a week, mainly depending on how quickly subsequent blurb nominations gain consensus. Left guide (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Alt-Blurb 4 since it's concise. After a few days switch to John Korir's picture. 23:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harizotoh9 (talk • contribs)
- John Korir is a disambig, so I redirected to John Korir (born 1996) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nominator comment - It appears blurb IV has the most support in replies. Looking to see if there's consensus to add to ITN. Add your 'support's/'oppose's/other constructive comments below. Ahuman00 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now on quality. Article is barely more than a stub. Needs a lot of expansion, and in particular prose summaries for each of the events. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready. The article has no prose describing the races. There needs to be at least a paragraph each about the men's and women's races, with references, explaining what happened. If/when that's fixed, alt4 is the only decent blurb proposal. PS. I've piped out the year in the blurbs, which we never include Modest Genius talk 11:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- More than 24 hours later, there has been no progress on the article. Modest Genius talk 15:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality due to lack of prose. The Kip (contribs) 16:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality no race summary prose. Entrant information should be prose not bullet points, and could ideally also include entrants for the wheelchair and notable people from the mass participation event too. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Winner man is a stub, winner woman is badly sourced. Grimes2 16:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Pahalgam attack
[edit]Blurb: At least 28 people are killed and several others injured in a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, India. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At least 28 people are killed and several others injured in an attack in Pahalgam, disputed-Jammu and Kashmir, India.
Alternative blurb II: At least 28 people are killed and several others injured in an attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir.
News source(s): Reuters, Al Jazeera, New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by RIDH-1 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The attack is among the deadliest targeting civilians in Kashmir in recent years and is the deadliest attack in the Valley after the Revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. RIDH-1 (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- comment terrorist is a loaded term.Sportsnut24 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Don't want to sound rude but killing innocent tourists is undoubtedly an act of terrorism. RIDH-1 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not for us as a neutral platform to use loaded terms. State's also do that and we don't label it terrorism.Sportsnut24 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's reluctance to label such acts as terrorism, even when civilians are deliberately targeted, reflects a flawed neutrality that can blur moral clarity. Neutrality shouldn't come at the cost of calling out violence against innocents. RIDH-1 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- You can always take it to discussion to do so. In that case, every state attack on civilians would also be labeled terrorist. However, you can take that to discussion to get consensus.Sportsnut24 (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't about "moral clarity" it's about cited information. It can't say anything is good or bad, and we let readers draw their own conclusions on such issues. Who is "innocent" or not is a POV and from the standpoint of an encyclopedia, no point of view is more important than others. Was this or that war good or bad? Is this person innocent? Very subjective, cultural, and endlessly debated and debatable and basically a waste of time. Instead, focus on improving articles so that readers can be best equipped to understand the topics so that they can draw conclusions on their own that are based on cited information. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, we call bin Laden "militant reader" in the first lead sentence, if that tells you how cautiously we take the term "terrorist". — EF5 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- A pet peeve I have is the "domestic terrorist" exception. MOS:TERRORIST is inconsistently applied. See the lede of Timothy McVeigh. Bremps... 23:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hey, we call bin Laden "militant reader" in the first lead sentence, if that tells you how cautiously we take the term "terrorist". — EF5 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's reluctance to label such acts as terrorism, even when civilians are deliberately targeted, reflects a flawed neutrality that can blur moral clarity. Neutrality shouldn't come at the cost of calling out violence against innocents. RIDH-1 (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- It is not for us as a neutral platform to use loaded terms. State's also do that and we don't label it terrorism.Sportsnut24 (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Don't want to sound rude but killing innocent tourists is undoubtedly an act of terrorism. RIDH-1 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This is part of an ongoing low-intensity civil war. Bremps... 18:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm writing this comment assuming good faith :-) but calling it a "low-intensity civil war" is misleading. It’s a complex geopolitical conflict involving cross-border terrorism, separatist elements, and historical disputes between India and Pakistan. RIDH-1 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- obvious support the casualty count if high enough and the context of it being so high since the changes make it notable. It is far more notable that boat drownings, rooftop collapses or discotheque fires.Sportsnut24 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb 1 (though should use "Indian-administered Kashmir" per ITN precedent). Was on the fence about this (part of an ongoing dispute) but seeing this in line of the revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India and the specific targetting of civilians (uncommon for the region's militant groups); I think ITN criteria is met. Gotitbro (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro: I added Altblurb2 which uses 'Indian-administered Kashmir'. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Shifting support to alt-blurb 2. Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro: I added Altblurb2 which uses 'Indian-administered Kashmir'. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 03:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - but change terrorist to militant. I would also be alright with ALT1.
- WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Either blurb could do, and the number of deaths is quite significant. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Added and Support altblurb II (an attack could be changed to a militant attack though): Massive attack after a moment of peace, reported to be 'larger attack at civilians in recent years', draws domestic and international reaction. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 01:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good, well cited. However, the reaction section should be reduced as a long one serves no purpose. Sherenk1 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support – neutral on the use of the "terrorist" term. "... in an attack" works well enough. Juxlos (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb II as it is worded with a NPOV about a significant event. 2402:E000:541:D5B6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support – and will go with Altblurb II by ExclusiveEditor. The term "Indian-administered Kashmir" deals better for the region on the ITN, since the status of broader Kashmir region is disputed, "disputed-Jammu and Kashmir, India" causes ambiguity (i.e., dispute within the country (India) or at international level). MŠLQr (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above and go with Altblurb II. IDB.S (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted It seemed like the preference was for Altburb II, but I also felt that the blurb (all of them really) sounded a bit too passive (general preference for more active voice on ITN) and further didn't make it clear that this was a... non-state attack. I understand not using the term "terrorist", but it didn't seem like there was objection to the term "militants" (which is used repeatedly in the article) and mentioning "tourists" also provides further context. Reader can draw their own conclusions. -- tariqabjotu 06:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Good shape for a terrorist attack article. ArionStar (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
RD/Blurb: Zurab Tsereteli
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Georgian-Russian sculptor Zurab Tsereteli dies at the age of 91. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, The Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)
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: He was one of the greatest and most famous sculptors of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. His famous works include Chronicle of Georgia and St. George Statue in Tbilisi, The Tear of Grief in Bayonne, New Jersey, Birth of the New World in Arecibo, Puerto Rico and Birth of a New Man in Seville. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality The article needs a lot of referencing work, there's a lot of information with no source. In its present state it is neither ready for RD nor blurb. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality too much unsourced. Oppose blurb, no indication of how they are a major figure in the world of art / sculpting. Would need discussion of legacy or impact to show this to be the case. Masem (t) 12:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as I've orange-tagged the article for a massive lack of citations. Oppose on notability per Masem - there's not a lot to indicate how he was a uniquely famous/notable sculptor to the level we generally reserve for blurbs. The Kip (contribs) 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb He's not getting in the Who's Whos lists. See this and this. Bremps... 18:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Article has multiple unsourced statements. SurveyMonkey...
(Closed) Signalgate: 2nd leak
[edit]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.
Blurb: A second security breach is found after chief US government officials' Signal group chats discussing confidential military operations in Yemen are shared by Pete Hegseth with his wife, brother, and personal lawyer. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
- Oppose until there are some real consequences (e.g. high government officials resign). After the first and the second leak, there may be third, fourth and so on and so forth. We cannot just post every time this happens.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- But we risk giving negative false equivalence here. Most administrations would have fired Hegseth by now, however that there are no consequences is a defining feature here. There are no consequences to any of these latest actions and everyone else looks to be powerless to execute anything of note to change that. That doesn't mean the leak itself doesn't have implications because a security breach of this magnitude does have consequences. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't say this leak doesn't have implications or it's a minor thing. The problem here is that these leaks may become so frequent that we'd have to regularly post them if we set a precedent, and it'd be very difficult to say no if a future leak reveals more notable information than any of the previous leaks. I suggest to wait for a while to see if this continues and then re-nominate it for ongoing.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- But we risk giving negative false equivalence here. Most administrations would have fired Hegseth by now, however that there are no consequences is a defining feature here. There are no consequences to any of these latest actions and everyone else looks to be powerless to execute anything of note to change that. That doesn't mean the leak itself doesn't have implications because a security breach of this magnitude does have consequences. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Zero ramifications came from the first leak, and the only thing happening is potentially the outster of Hegseth, which even if that does happen, will have very little long term impact. Politicians, journalists, and talking heads can talk how big of a problem it is, but until there's actual penalties placed against those that did that, its not a good story for ITN. Masem (t) 12:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose For the same reason I opposed the much bigger first leak story; Trump 2.0 shenanigans are simply much bigger than a single chat leak. Gotitbro (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. We already rejected the first leak; this one is getting less media attention. The article treats this new leak as a brief follow-up to the main event. It's clearly incompetent and maybe Hegseth will lose his job, but even if that happened it wouldn't be a big enough deal to merit an ITN blurb. This is domestic politics with lots of debate but no real outcomes. Modest Genius talk 13:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- We didnt reject the 1st nomination at all, it actually had consensus to post but came too late and was deemed stale. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- That nomination seems 'no consensus' to me - which is another way of saying ITN/C didn't support it sufficiently to post. Modest Genius talk 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- We didnt reject the 1st nomination at all, it actually had consensus to post but came too late and was deemed stale. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Oh no! Anyways, no one has resigned. 2001:2020:347:C24D:2C9C:B7FF:FECB:C5C7 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Short of having an Ongoing which would basically be an "Idiocracy in the USA" ticker, I don't see that we can accommodate the litany of omnishambles emanating from the White House. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Ongoing/news ticker-grade development. Call back when there's an actual outcome (resignation, conviction etc). CoatCheck (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Puan Noor Aishah
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNA
Credits:
- Nominated by Robertsky (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ForsythiaJo (talk · give credit)
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: Wife of the first president of Singapore – robertsky (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically not a stub, but stringy. Bremps... 02:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Article is too short and lacks depth; it does not sufficiently cover the subject's life and impact to support a blurb. SurveyMonkey... SurveyMonkey (talk) 07:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nice signature. Bremps... 18:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- works well with dark mode – robertsky (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nice signature. Bremps... 18:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: The article has been expanded by others. – robertsky (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
April 21
[edit]
April 21, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
RD: Hajji Alejandro
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philstar.com
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:25DF:E53F:705:D068 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit) and Raider000 (talk · give credit)
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: Filipino singer and actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:25DF:E53F:705:D068 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Gerard Kennedy
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3], [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kelisi (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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.
Happily888 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Peter von Matt
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NZZ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (talk · give credit)
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: Swiss philologist, specialist in German studies, and author Grimes2 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Whole enough and well-cited enough. Bremps... 23:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Looks decent. Sourced. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Herbert J. Gans
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
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) 06:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose "Studies in news media" section is entirely unsourced. The Kip (contribs) 16:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Pope Francis' death
[edit]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.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Pope Francis dies aged 88. (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by Twistedaxe (talk · give credit)
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.
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.
- Support ITN/R nobrainer for hook. Article adequately updated. Juxlos (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no need to debate this. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Self-evident. Only possible caveat is cause of death probably should be included (both in article and in blurb), but otherwise ready for ITN. ArkHyena (they/any) 08:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Altblurbs are welcome, wrote my blurb in a rush. TwistedAxe [contact] 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Also nominating as the featured articles for In The News section, once the wiki is edited WadoodSultan (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support per all above. There's no argument or debate for this. ROY is WAR Talk! 08:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Head of over 1 billion faithful. Prodrummer619 (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Needs work There's a prominent cleanup tag saying that the article has an unclear citation style. That has been there since January and so some cleanup and copy-editing seems needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: The unfortunate day has come. Tofusaurus (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well written and clearly evident for blurbing. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: No debate needed. RIP. Pyramids09 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support It was more worthly deserved a separate article dedicated to death of him. RIP. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Well said by literally everyone else, no brainer AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Per above. Importance is given. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. A major religious figure and Pope for twelve years. No brainer, as what the guy above said. RealAmericanNixonite (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Death and funeral of Pope Francis now has a standalone article. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article seems well-written. As mentioned above, it has a yellow tag which should be addressed, but I do not see any talk page discussion detailing what the issue is. As long as the issue is merely grammatical and nothing is unsourced, I am fine with saying it should not hold up posting this major event to ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support ITNR and meets WP:ITNQUALITY (a yellow tag for citation style doesn't stop this being posted). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The head of the largest religion on the glob dying is pretty noteworthy news LukySe7en (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously support The Seal F1 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the citation style tag is due to the three books listed at the bottom of the References section. – robertsky (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no debate needed JustAnAlbo (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Easy support here Eddie891 Talk Work 08:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per others Centuries123 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posting. The article is updated, the yellow tag is seen as non problematic. Since there is a separate article on death and funeral, it can be incorporated into the blurb later. Please also take care of the photo. --Tone 08:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Image
Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Image
- Support. Short and simple. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the article on his death should be linked and probably blurbed
- Kowal2701 (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- The death article has no additional encyclopedic content to the main article (reactions lists are trivial), so doesn't meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Obviously. ArionStar (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post posting support rest in peace Holy Father Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support God rest his soul. TenorTwelve (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support - nobrainer for posting WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- JD Vance angle: I do not endorse the rumors exploding across the Internet that Vance somehow killed the Pope, whether due to stress or with alien nanobots or the like, but do we want to mention that death came hours after their meeting? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, blurbs are meant to be kept as simple and straightforward as possible (per ITN/A:
The aim of the blurb is to convey the most pertinent facts in as little space as possible.
). And adding Vance is unnecessary and UNDUE. Natg 19 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC) - Of course we don't put that in the headline. But lettuce reconsider it if Vance suffers the same fate as Truss. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No the visit is irrelevant to a death blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- She was actually Head Honcho, not just a Munchkin? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- The Pope met the Croatian PM last anyway, so I'm not sure why the second-last guy to visit him matters. Bremps... 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, no reason to implicitly make accusations. - RockinJack18 18:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant compared to such a monumental death, also WP:NTRUMP and trying to keep an "encylopedic tone" Normalman101 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, blurbs are meant to be kept as simple and straightforward as possible (per ITN/A:
- Comment Death and funeral of Pope Francis is an article now. ArionStar (talk)`
Possible blurb target change to Death and funeral of Pope Francis
[edit]Per the current ITN section of WP:ERRORS, this sub-section is being opened so the community can discuss and assess article quality for a possible blurb target change to Death and funeral of Pope Francis. The relevant change would look like this. Left guide (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- I suggested that we add a normal (not bold) link, viz
- Pope Francis (pictured) dies at the age of 88.
- I don't think that requires an ITN/C discussion or understand why it was objected to. It's a minor improvement to the blurb that I still think should be implemented. Modest Genius talk 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Generally any significant changes to a blurb should be done via ITNC. Particularly required if a new or different target is proposed. Even if we are just considering adding the death article as a non target link it should be verified that it is okay here. To that end I'm fine with adding the death article as a non target link, but as a target link it doesn't do much now that the main bio article does (it won't be at a state until after the funeral). Masem (t) 13:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Masem and Modest Genius: Is there at least a consensus to add it as a normal unbolded link? (I personally have no objections to such a change) Masem, as an admin maybe you can do it if you're willing and see consensus for it. Left guide (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article about death is fine. Grimes2 14:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to add it as non-bolded now. Not as the primary link though. Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Added to blurb as normal nonfeatured linkMasem (t) 14:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) WrestleMania 41
[edit]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.
Blurb: In professional wrestling, John Cena (pictured) is the 17th time champion beating Ric Flair's record in WrestleMania 41. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In professional wrestling, John Cena (pictured) defeats Cody Rhodes by pinfall making 17th champion breaking Ric Flair's record in WrestleMania 41.
News source(s): Cagesideseats USA Today Wrestletalk
Credits:
- Nominated by Royiswariii (talk · give credit)
- There are two tables called "Other on-screen personnel" that are unreferenced. Could that be rectified, please? Schwede66 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66, the "Other on-screen personnel" doesn't require reference for that based on the Good Article like WrestleMania XXX. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Surprising, but I shall relax. Schwede66 06:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just because other articles don't do things properly doesn't mean it's not necessary here. This won't get posted but needs references if it ever was going to. Stephen 07:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66, the "Other on-screen personnel" doesn't require reference for that based on the Good Article like WrestleMania XXX. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pro Wrestling is well known to be staged, so I don't know why we'd be playing along with this and saying this or that person "won" anything. It's more like the outcome of a play than a real competition. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on significance per Harizotoh, since it's a staged event not a sporting event where the result was in doubt. Also oppose on quality per the unreferenced tables mentioned by Schwede. — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The most significant real-world aspect of this seems to be that, for the first time, the event was live-streamed on Netflix at no extra charge for international audiences. See the BBC preview for good detail on the media business implications. Our article says a bit about this but doesn't, for example, say anything about the excessive number of adverts, as the BBC report does. So, it probably won't be posted but that leaves ITN just running a college basketball item from two weeks ago, as if nothing else significant is happening in the US. It's not a good look either way. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is not an athletic competition, but a scripted performance. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose As much of a fan of pro wrestling as I am, it’s a scripted show - it’d be akin to posting a reality show’s final to ITN. The Kip (contribs) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
April 20
[edit]
April 20, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports
|
Hugo Calderano wins table tennis title
[edit]Blurb: In table tennis, Brazilian player Hugo Calderano (pictured) wins the Table Tennis World Cup men's singles, becoming the first athlete from the Americas to win the competition. (Post)
News source(s): ITTF
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Unprecedented title, "breaking the Chinese dominance". Article in good conditions. ArionStar (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please provide references for the section "Clubs". Schwede66 01:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment isn't it more usual on ITN to blurb the event, not the winner? Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- And as this was a mixed event, that means the women's winner should also be posted. Which further leads me to question if this event is actually in the news, as the source above is the website of the organization that runs the even, not an independent source. Masem (t) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite easy to search using Google News. My impression is that this mainly covered in Brazilian/Chinese news so sites like Xinhua, South China Morning Post and TV BRICS have it on their English language pages. This indicates that there's considerable systemic bias here. Table tennis is quite a well-known sport but, because it's dominated by non-Anglo nations, it's not in ITN/R. China especially dominates the sport but ITN rarely covers Chinese news. Perhaps the ongoing world events will change this... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's also the fact the yearly event is hit or miss if there is an article about it, much less one of quality. I did look to see if we have table tennis as an ITNR as it would make sense, but clearly we haven't had anyone sufficiently vested in trying to bring the annual event up to speed. Masem (t) 14:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite easy to search using Google News. My impression is that this mainly covered in Brazilian/Chinese news so sites like Xinhua, South China Morning Post and TV BRICS have it on their English language pages. This indicates that there's considerable systemic bias here. Table tennis is quite a well-known sport but, because it's dominated by non-Anglo nations, it's not in ITN/R. China especially dominates the sport but ITN rarely covers Chinese news. Perhaps the ongoing world events will change this... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- And as this was a mixed event, that means the women's winner should also be posted. Which further leads me to question if this event is actually in the news, as the source above is the website of the organization that runs the even, not an independent source. Masem (t) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Regardless of significance (which is doubtful), the relevant article would be 2025 Table Tennis World Cup (or 2025 ITTF Men's World Cup), which doesn't exist. Bold links are for the event in question, not the athlete. If no-one has bothered to write an article, we cannot even consider this for ITN. Modest Genius talk 11:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why would significance be doubtful here? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Ping-pong isn't in the WP:ITNR. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- If articles were of significant quality and posted regularly then it would be. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Routine events not listed at ITNR can be made as regular ITNC, and that's often a route for bringing a routine event into ITNR if its shown to be posted multiple times in a row as an ITNC. Masem (t) 12:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support notability but Oppose on quality. Being a world champion in an Olympic sport that has a huge worldwide player participation, especially so in several countries where it is widely played, and is the de facto national sport of the world's most populous nation state, certainly merits posting. However, as in other sports articles, 2025 Table Tennis World Cup should be the target, and this is a huge shame as Calderano's win is a seismic upset of the biggest proportions. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
April 19
[edit]
April 19, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
|
RD: Karen Durbin
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bklibcat67 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Death reported 19 April. Thriley (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Fully referenced, appropriate depth. SpencerT•C 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support 3429 characters (549 words) "readable prose size", no issues. Grimes2 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - long enough. Sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Reviewers needed) RD: Guy Ullens
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ARTnews, VRT Nws
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:E0D6:217:D193:E673 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kelisi (talk · give credit)
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: Belgian art collector and founder of the UCCA Center for Contemporary Art. 240F:7A:6253:1:E0D6:217:D193:E673 (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support No issues. Grimes2 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Supreme Court order on deportations
[edit]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.
Blurb: The United States Supreme Court blocks the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan men under the Alien Enemies Act in a 1:00 a.m. order. (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:
- Created and nominated by voorts (talk · give credit)
- Oppose - It doesn't seem worthy of being ITN candidate because its just a case. Also Trump deported many more migrants already and so this group of migrants being blocked doesn't really make anything radical or new. DotesConks (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- This
just a case
has attained significant worldwide media coverage and commentary because of the unusual nature of the order. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- This
- Oppose - As long as I have been alive, the United States has been one of several countries with a reputation for deporting people for any reason or no reason at all. I see no change in that long-standing policy under the Trump administration, and this judicial ruling falls a long way short of any change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why does it need to change policy to be enough for ITN? The media and commenters have been describing this as a significant separation of powers confrontation that represents a significant rebuke to Trump's AEA invocation from the Court. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is part of a far larger story related to the possible constitutional crisis on how the Trump admin has been handling deportations and its disregards for the courts, though we're still not yet at a point that it has tipped beyond a threshold. That larger story is most likely what will be what is more appropriate for ITN to post than one of multiple court orders that have been placed about this. Masem (t) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have crystal balls and what may or may not happen should not play a role in determination. Focusing on the merits of the story is what alone should be determined rather than our own speculation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that this specific story is an element of a much larger story. This element alone is not worth posting to ITN (neither a news nor a trump ticker), but the larger story, if it develops in a way many journalists, legal scholars, and others are concerned with, would likely be one of those things we should post, just like with the tariffs. Its also possible this whole situation may resolve without any issues (in which case we'd not post). We're not blind to what's happening in the US Govt and know its making news but we should wait for something that is really significant to happen, representing a point of no return or similar line, to be what we post to ITN, not just a solitary development that gets wide coverage. Masem (t) 21:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have crystal balls and what may or may not happen should not play a role in determination. Focusing on the merits of the story is what alone should be determined rather than our own speculation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: just internal US politics Cambalachero (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wait: since it's just an injunction and the case is still pending. The actual case is more news worthy. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose USA’s checks and balances system doing its job. Not enough notable for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is just a preliminary injunction and the case is still pending. Natg 19 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NTRUMP and the fact that this particular legal wrangle is just starting with no evidence so far showing this is in any way any more significant than all the other recent legal and political turmoil in the US. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Standard national court process, nothing noteworthy on an international stage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 10:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: George McMillan (politician)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Yoblyblob (talk · give credit)
- Updated by History6042 (talk · give credit)
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: Article has some length, could be a little longer but no citation issues. Former Lt. Gov of Alabama Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
OpposeSupport, it is long enough after my expansions. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not a stub any longer, you should remove the stub tag, MtPenguinMonster. However, that looks like a stub to me! Schwede66 01:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Still far too thin. Is it really being suggested this is the sort of article which deserves to be highlighted on the front page? 3142 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is a nomination page; it is to be expected that a number of the candidates are not up to snuff just yet. This article isn't too far off from posting: a solid paragraph on his legislative career and another on his tenure as lieutenant governor (and maybe a bit of his post-political career, if known) should be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Russo-Ukraine ceasefire
[edit]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.
Blurb: Russia announces a ceasefire with Ukraine in prison exchange deal. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-declares-unilateral-easter-ceasefire-ukraine-2025-04-19/
Credits:
- Nominated by DotesConks (talk · give credit)
- Oppose According to the cited source it's meant to last only for this weekend, Ukraine has already rejected it, and Russia had made similar unilateral ceasefire declarations for this conflict in the past. While a well-intentioned nomination, it's clear that this ceasefire declaration won't have much long-term ramifications. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 16:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Patagonia. — EF5 17:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Mount Patagonia I admit that I made this nomination just by looking at the headlines, but given Trump's pressure on Russia I really thought it would be a ceasefire. Just another case of "OMG LOOK HERE" DotesConks (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per Mount Patagonia. Departure– (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
April 18
[edit]
April 18, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
|
(READY) RD: Stina Oscarson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
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.
BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Solid article. No issues. Grimes2 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Does reference #2 confirm her date of birth? Reference #1 has the year only. Schwede66 01:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it confirms her birthdate.BabbaQ (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- The month in the lead and infobox do no match. —Bagumba (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Fixed Grimes2 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- The month in the lead and infobox do no match. —Bagumba (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it confirms her birthdate.BabbaQ (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Does reference #2 confirm her date of birth? Reference #1 has the year only. Schwede66 01:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- May I suggest that English translations are provided for the numerous foreign language book titles in the prose? Schwede66 05:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Fixed.BabbaQ (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Article could use some copyediting; the translations could benefit from being formatted with {{en}} templates; could use more depth about her theatre leadership roles (e.g. what does being one of the "theater leaders for the Orionteatern" entail?) IMO needs a little bit more work before this is ready. SpencerT•C 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Fixed--BabbaQ (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Clodagh Rodgers
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ, Irish Times
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:65E2:9D15:F64E:9D6 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ErktheBerserker (talk · give credit)
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: Northern Irish singer who represented the United Kingdom at the Eurovision Song Contest. 240F:7A:6253:1:65E2:9D15:F64E:9D6 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support A distinctive and famous name which will work well in RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - needs plenty of additional sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Nikola Pokrivač
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, Croatia Week
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:C99E:58BC:C5A1:6E9C (talk · give credit)
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: Croatian international professional footballer. 240F:7A:6253:1:C99E:58BC:C5A1:6E9C (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Unless my narrow phone is fooling me, this is good enough. Bremps... 03:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unreferenced place and date of birth. Schwede66 05:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ping me when sourced and ready per above. And I support.BabbaQ (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Jennifer Toth
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by CAWylie (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American journalist. Death reported 18 April. Thriley (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Although the article would benefit from some additional detail about her journalism career, it does have appropriate depth on her later works for which she is principally known; fully referenced. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 04:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
April 17
[edit]
April 17, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Reviewers needed) RD: Bill Aitken (writer)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of India
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Death announced 17 April. Thriley (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Needs references. SpencerT•C 04:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready Needs references. Grimes2 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(READY) RD: Peter Ablinger
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): nmz
Credits:
- Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kelisi (talk · give credit), Grimes2 (talk · give credit) and Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
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: Austrian composer who settled in Berlin and became a leader in experimental music running an ensemble, a publishing house, festivals, and teaching internationally. Good new refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Referenced, appropriate depth. Marking "ready". SpencerT•C 04:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Needs action @Admins willing to post ITN: Needs post today. Grimes2 (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Joseph Thompson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
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.
Abcmaxx (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well cited article. Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Well-done article. Sad tale. Kicking222 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: consensus seems to be that this can be posted now. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Could someone please provide a source for the date of birth that works, please? Or an archive URL? Schwede66 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Found dob in Rochdale Times. I hope, that's ok. Grimes2 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 01:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Found dob in Rochdale Times. I hope, that's ok. Grimes2 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Could someone please provide a source for the date of birth that works, please? Or an archive URL? Schwede66 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Fatma Hassona
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Euro News
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Οἶδα (talk · give credit) and Afonso Dimas Martins (talk · give credit)
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: Palestinian photojournalist. The subject of the upcoming film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk. Thriley (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too stuby.Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)- Looks fine now. Support. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is a stub. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - on the shorter side. But start class now. Sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose More information needed in the article. Currently too stubby. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support, well sourced, long enough for a RD. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support looks long enough now Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unreferenced DoB. Schwede66 01:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Satisfactory length and quality. RIP. Bremps... 19:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Everything seems to check out, should be ready. Ornithoptera (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a source for her age being 26 in the infobox? WP can't readily compute it without an exact birthdate.—Bagumba (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted And in a rather unusual "move" (excuse the pun), I've moved this article in the middle of a formal move request (see the RM if you are interested in the rationale). Schwede66 05:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) K2-18b likely teeming with microbial life
[edit]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.
Blurb: Spectroscopic signatures of dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide detected on the exoplanet K2-18b by the James Webb Space Telescope can with current scientific knowledge, only be explained by the presence of microbial life (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Astrophyshical Journal Letters (peer review source)
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Needs work The discovery is interesting and in the news but life is not the only explanation on offer. The BBC source says, "Other research groups have put forward alternative, lifeless, explanations for the data obtained from K2-18b ... which highlights the strong scientific debate surrounding K2-18b." This is science in action, testing hypotheses against the data and continuing to refine the results. So, the blurb needs to convey the current state of the debate rather than presenting one side uncritically. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The phrase "only be explained by the presence of microbial life" is contradicted within the article per: "planetary scientist Sarah Hörst pointed to lab experiments that show DMS can be produced without life." While it deepens our understanding of this exoplanet and interesting in a vacuum, I feel like it's premature to say whether it is caused by microbial life or not. The uncertainties make me question whether it would be blurb-worthy, even NASA is cautious regarding the matter. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Professional astronomer here. This team has claimed the same result before, which was widely criticised by other astronomers. The detection was discredited and the interpretation as a biosignature was disputed by most researchers working in the field. Now the team is claiming to detect the same molecule by a different method, which is useful, but it's still a marginal detection and the interpretation is still flawed. There is no evidence that this is related to life - DMS can be produced by abiotic processes. The press release and resulting coverage are ridiculously overblown. Modest Genius talk 10:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose an abundance of caution is needed here - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that - and there have been similar claims in the past. I'm reminded most directly of those claims of Venusian bio signatures of a few years ago, now generally regarded as debunked. Slightly more generally we posted the "discovery" of planet nine perhaps a decade ago, which looks a little premature with hindsight as it has still not been found. 3142 (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The peer reviewed paper lists both of these as "possible biosignature" but as others have pointed out there's non-biological sources for these too and the paper doesn't go anywhere as far to claim life. Finding these traces are not uncommon from what I understand so this is not as much of a breakthrough as suggested by blurb. Even the BBC article keeps far low key as to the significance here. Masem (t) 12:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A very poor and clearly unscientific nomination: life likely isn't the explanation; the highly speculative superhabitable world is presented as fact, the rest of the nominating comment is just as bit imaginative and fabulous. With this and the "dire wolf" nomination, makes one wonder what has happened to science communication. Gotitbro (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per all opposes above me Shaneapickle (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, this doesn't mean that there's life there, and we should wait the 1-2 years for confirmation if there's life. Per many above, this does not indicate life and researchers have been skeptical about this. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe sorta possibly a finding that may turn out to be something isn't breaking news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Expo 2025
[edit]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.
Blurb: Expo 2025 is opened in Osaka, Japan. (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo
Credits:
- Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Needs work The lead still uses the future tense – "will be held" – and does not provide an adequate summary of the rest of the article. The Guardian reports that "The pavilions – and Fujimoto’s “sustainable” edifice – will be dismantled later this year to make way for Japan’s first casino." but the article does not include this discouraging fact. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ITNR I'm not seeing anything on the ITNR list to suggest this trade show, much less any trade show, is ITNR. Masem (t) 12:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- World's fair (aka Expo <year>) was on ITNR for many years, but was removed in 2021. Modest Genius talk 13:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a bi-annual event that happens every 2 years and plus I am opposing this per @Masem this also falls under WP:NOTNEWS Shaneapickle (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The main world's fair is once per 5 years but world's fairs aren't as big as they used to be (first one (1851 World's Fair) to at least 1964-5 inclusive) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- There was Expo 2023 in Argentina and there is scheduled to be an Expo 2027 in Belgrade, Serbia. It seems de facto biannual to me. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- World's fair#Types says the ones between the 5 year ones have scale/cost restrictions like 25 hectares+0.1 hectares per country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- There was Expo 2023 in Argentina and there is scheduled to be an Expo 2027 in Belgrade, Serbia. It seems de facto biannual to me. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The main world's fair is once per 5 years but world's fairs aren't as big as they used to be (first one (1851 World's Fair) to at least 1964-5 inclusive) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Not seeing much front-page or in-depth coverage in the most prominent sources, which implies to me that it is a relatively standard biannual event with little enduring notability or impact. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a routine event with little coverage and no major announcements or distinctions. The article is all minor details, with no obvious impact. I can't see anything special about it that might merit posting on ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above; the claim that this is part of a coherent series going back to the 1851 Great Exhibition seems ahistorical to me. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the Bureau International des Expositions says. They just lost importance over time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how an organisation founded in 1928, with no predecessor founded earlier than 1902, can say definitively that an event in 1851 was part of the series it oversees. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't see how this is news. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
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: