Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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.

Charlie Kirk in 2024
Charlie Kirk

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.

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.

September 11

[edit]

September 10

[edit]

(Closed) Potential signs of life on Mars

[edit]
Consensus will not develop to post. Fuzheado | Talk 01:02, 11 September 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: Life on Mars (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ NASA announces the discovery potential signs of ancient life on Cheyava Falls (pictured) by Perseverance rover. (Post)
News source(s): NASA, CNN
Credits:
 ArionStar (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I revised the blurb a while ago at the lower ITN and it's a lot more complicated and a lot less concrete than this blurb posits:

An article published in Nature announces that the Perseverance rover discovered vivianite, greigite, and various organic compounds in rocks at Cheyava Falls on Mars, in what Administrator of NASA Sean Duffy claims may be "the clearest sign of life that we’ve ever found on Mars". While greigite can be produced without the influence of life, current geological models of Mars do not support that the rocks were formed above 250 °C (482 °F), the temperature needed to form the mineral in a laboratory. (The New York Times)

It's equally likely that Mars' geological models are wrong or another event caused the greigite formations. Per EF5, we really shouldn't be jumping the gun for the discovery that we aren't alone in the universe, and official statements for whether or not this is a sign of life have all used an awful lot of weaselly and uncertain language (again, for the discovery of a singe mineral that doesn't conclusively prove life exists on Mars). Departure– (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "potential" Hungry403 (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Departure– --Pithon314 (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose potential albeit cool nothing confirmed
Otto (talk) 23:46, 10 September 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) Shooting of Charlie Kirk

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Shooting of Charlie Kirk (talk · history · tag) and Charlie Kirk (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American political activist Charlie Kirk (pictured) is shot and killed at an event in Utah. (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
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: Influential political activist. Shooting appears to have inflicted major damage. Thriley (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose if Kirk passes away, it would qualify for RD, but otherwise, a shooting in the US (barring of the president) is not ITN blurb-worthy. Also, Kirk is not a major figure but is just a political pundit. Natg 19 (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the current article (as of the nomination) is not up to par and mainly consists of a large reaction with no information on the shooting. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw your statement and apologize.Danthemankhan 21:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are a non-political neutral site. Withdraw your statement per WP:NPOV. Admins, can we strike any political trumpeting - be it from the left or the right here and warn the user? AA (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) I have redacted the BLP violations in that statement. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly violated BLP in that statement? Kirk strongly supported Trumpism. Trumpism has been defined by leagues of scholars as neo-fascist. It's ridiculous to strike someone else's comment simply because you disagree with it. Loytra (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does Kirk's actual politics have anything to do with this blurb? Famous influencer is killed (seemingly an assassination) and is being reported on both in the US and worldwide by every single major news network. End of story. AFlamingIcicle (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Leagues of Scholars" thats you and those scholars opinions, and not really the topic of this discussion. shane (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what world does that warrant a "redaction"? I restored the comment; that was incredibly out of line. Loytra (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV. If you want to discuss politics, or make political statements, this isn't the forum. AA (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV relates to articles, not talk pages. Loytra (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but NOTSOAPBOX applies here, as does BLP. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but this still doesn't warrant removing someone's comment. Loytra (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a BLP fascist based solely on an OR assessment of their support of other politicians is a blatant BLP violation. I won't re-redact it because I don't want to edit war, but I wouldn't stop anyone else from redacting it, and I stand by my original edit. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original user didn't call Kirk a fascist, they said he contributed to a fascist agenda, which is true. Please don't delete comments because you disagree with them. self-stricken; doesn't reflect WP:AGF Loytra (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rest in peace. Such a young man full of life being publicly executed is (Redacted). 192.184.144.106 (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Refactoring and redacting NPOV and BLP statement by IP. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Highly prominent political figure, famous in the United States and in many other countries around the world, such as the UK, Australia, and the European countries. Death publicly acknowledged by major leaders around the world. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 22:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean, "his stature"? As I said above, most of the world has never heard of him and looking at his article he does not seem to be a particularly important political figure. As far as I can see, he mostly seems to be famous for promoting conspiracy theories. Black Kite (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point they were making is that his stature was small and that that isn’t relevant. A political figure was assassinated due to their politics (if he dies). They’re making the point that that is relevant enough. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I misread that, but it makes my point; how important does someone have to be to qualify for a blurb if they are shot dead in a country which has thousands of gun deaths a year? I would say; more important than Kirk, unless the shooting has further consequences down the line, and anything is possible with the current administration. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If Kirk dies, it was because he was assassinated. The U.S. does not have thousands of assassinations per year. The last major assassination by my count, was in June, of a state representative, somebody who was much less politically prominent than Kirk (and who got on ITN). If political figures were getting assassinated everyday, you’d have a point, but they aren’t. 1brianm7 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but you're missing my point. If an elected political figure was assassinated, then clearly that's a major story. But Kirk is a political activist in a country where there are a lot of political activists. Plus see my reply to TDKR Chicago 101 below. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying that there's a 'lot of humans' therefore no human's death should ever be blurbed. You're straying from the important part, is that political assassinations in the entire western world are rare. Nottheking (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose even if he unfortunately passes away. It is a tragic event involving a media figure in the United States, but strictly domestic in a country where gun violence is more than routine. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gun violence is common, yes, but politically-motivated assassinations very much are not. Nottheking (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but they occur more frequently than usual in Europe and other regions of the world. Correlated. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for more details. If he passes away, I think a blurb is justifiable, although it could use more discussion. I would bet a large portion of the English-speaking population has heard of him. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose per Alsor. I can't see what his significance is, the US isn't exactly short of vocal and controversial political commentators/activists Kowal2701 (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - non-fatal shooting of a private individual holding no office. If he died unremarkably I'd imagine a blurb nomination would be opened but pushed down, and him surviving an assassination attempt means little on the world scale. Turning Point Action isn't at the top of my list for American conservative groups, either in influence, notoriety, or numbers; a lot of people helped Trump win 2024. The blurb should mention Turning Point Action, if this does end up being posted, however. Departure– (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Departure–: Kirk has been confirmed to have died. Since most of your !vote was centered around the fact that the shooting was non-fatal, and successful assassinations are a very rare occurrence in the United States, does this change your opinion? QuicoleJR (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See new !vote below. Departure– (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Donald Trump has confirmed his death. An act of violence like this is newsworthy in every sense of the word; especially in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses. UnbearableIsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. Per Nottheking, while gun violence is a common occurrence in America, and not ITN worthy, a politically-motivated assassination, much more that of an influential figure who is heavily related to the current administration, is not.
Ezlo Jeslan (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for details but Strong Support blurb. An act of politically-motivated violence against a prominent conservative activist is newsworthy. Dr Fell (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb. I think the main argument should be how rare it is for a politically motivated assassionation in the U.S. to occur. Sure Kirk is a notable right-wing commentator/influencer but the manner of this death: a young man being publicly assassinated in front of a big crowd, well, that's the story right there. That is pretty rare. For a figure so prominent on the news/political scene to be gunned down in public. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good faith question, though; if the news story is a very rare politically motivated shooting (and I admit they are rare - there's the Trump one, but let's not go there), should it matter if Kirk dies or not? Either the event is notable or it isn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb Assassination of one of the most important figures on the modern right. We blurbed the assassination of a no-name state level lawmaker in Minnesota, the Kirk slaying will have 10,000x the ramifications. DangOrangatang (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb (if not, then RD) he was confirmed dead, assassinated AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: do you support what? ArionStar (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb as many important assassinations weren’t posted. Just because it was an American one?
ArionStar (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Help! How do I unsubscribe from this conversation, I'm sick of the 34 emails per nanosecond. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Assassination of an extremely relevant figure in the American right. Daluncio (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kash Patel has announced that they do have Charlie Kirk's killer in custody, should probably be added to the article shane (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zachariah Ahmed Qureshi is the enemy. 192.184.144.106 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Post-Posting Oppose Solely because he was not an actual politician and was just an influencer, not a particularly transformative one either. However, the manner of death is quite interesting and he has his own death article, which is why I only weakly oppose this blurb. Otherwise, I don't exactly see why this was blurbed. Hungry403 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb High-profile political commentator assassinated in such a public fashion, with potentially explosive repercussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.23.77 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose blurb. Support RD. --Bedivere (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability, though I think it should probably say "shot and killed" rather than "assassinated" as that seems to be more in line with article title conventions per WP:KILLINGS (blurb text and title should ideally match). The public killing of a comparatively high-profile individual like this warrants a blurb. Frankly, I think this should probably have been blurbed even if it had been non-fatal, compare e.g. Stabbing of Salman Rushdie, which we blurbed. I have not assessed whether this is ready quality-wise, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudgingly support blurb - this is unlike the Minnesota legislators Kirk wasn't a sitting public official, just an influential pundit. However, Kirk's influence over the current administration and his role in the U.S. political climate mean this will in all likelihood have a great deal of significance in the long-term. estar8806 (talk) ★ 21:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, killing of a major political influencer will bound to be heavily covered in the next few weeks, already US news and international news are covering the killing. AFlamingIcicle (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree he's widely-known - perhaps within only one country. I don't even see his claim to fame other being a prominent racist; influencer - what the heck is that? It isn't even linked in the article about him! Nfitz (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, assassination of one of the best known Conservative pundits in the United States Lukt64 (talk) 21:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otto (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb - although he wasn't elected to office, Kirk was arguably far more influential and had a greater notoriety than the Minnesota and Colombian lawmakers who were assassinated earlier this year, both of whom received a blurb. Regardless, a RD should be posted immediately. schetm (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain an oppose on this blurb per other reasons; Turning Point Action really isn't the loudest nor most influential in US politics, and while similar shootings such as this year's on legislators have been posted, I'd like to add that there was a consensus against posting Jean-Marie Le Pen's blurb, despite him founding National Rally, one of the biggest contemporary conservative organizations that was well above the importance of Turning Point. Kirk's influence on US and thus world politics was minimal compared to Le Pen, and nor too did Kirk hold any office, nor do anything notable enough to warrant a blurb in my eyes. I haven't seen the article's quality and will hold out on a !vote in that regard for now. Departure– (talk) 21:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Le Pen is a different case, as he died naturally, but for Kirk, there is a case for "death as the main story" (shot to death/assassinated). Natg 19 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb second political assassination within a year. This is getting out of hand. shane (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any confirmation this is politically motivated? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it wasnt politically, religiously, or anything else motivated he wouldn't have died would he? shane (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb, as per reasons listed above TheFellaVB (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Highly prominent political figure. The President commented his death. All news media are talking about this. M.Karelin (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 23:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If posted as a blurb, he should be removed from the RD line and the most recent one to scroll off (Haru Urara) readded GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb, guy and the case are notable, but the case doesn't warrant in ITN mention IMO. CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I try not to change blurbs I post (too much), but Right-wing American just read awkward to me, so I switched it to American right-wing. That's moot, though, since after The ed17 changed the proposed blurb to remove 'right-wing' (diff), I adjusted accordingly (diff). As always any admin is free to adjust this posting, including pulling it outright (I need not be consulted or even notified). El_C 23:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lot of major sources are saying far right (one, two, three) podcaster. So right-wing does seem to be incorrect - at least in a non-American context. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks El C. I didn't see that you'd posted the blurb when I made that edit—I'm a little surprised we didn't edit conflict in the literal one second that separated our edits (at least according to navigation popups). We didn't include political leanings/affilations for the Minnesota shootings or the Colombian senator, and I wanted to be consistent. Ed [talk] [OMT] 00:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its one thing on the article itself where there is room for sourcing and/or attribution for using contentious terms and labels (including if appropriate stating as fact but with immediate sourcing), but at ITN we absolutely should not be including those terms. We often even avoid political party naming unless we're talking government bodies that are formed by political parties. Masem (t) 00:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Np, Ed, but no edit conflict was possible even in theory, because you edited WP:ITNC and I (having seen that) had edited WP:ITN. At the event and as the diffs show, though, your change (at 19:12 UTC) preceded mine by 5 minutes (at 19:17 UTC). HTH. El_C 01:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull blurb I can't believe that we argued for days over the posting of assassinations of two actual politicians, but a pundit who's never held office and has had relatively little longstanding influence gets posted within minutes. Kirk made no substantial contributions to polticial thought even domestically, let alone worldwide. –DMartin 23:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is hinging their support on Kirk’s contributions to society; it’s about the shocking and newsworthy nature of the death. If he dropped dead of cancer today, this obviously would not have been nominated. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be shocking and newsworthy to Americans who have heard of him. But a racist far-right podcaster with a low international profile should not be ITN. No prejudice in posting if the US government is behind the shooting. Nfitz (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    600,000 Americans die of cancer each year and only 47,000 in shootings. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    47,000 shooting deaths, but very few assassinations of an otherwise notable (in the sense that he passes WP:N) public figure while he is delivering remarks in a public place. that’s what grounds the notability of the shooting. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pull blurb I agree with you on that! Never been in office, made little influence. 64.114 etc 00:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dmartin969: Being a politician doesn't make some one more influential. People like Ben Shapiro  5, Jon Stewart  5, Cenk Uygur  5, etc are much more influential than the vast majority of U.S. state representatives. I disagree that Kirk has had no contributions to political thought, see for example this February 2025 article by the New York Times, this June 2024 article by British newspaper The Guardian or this April 2025 article by French newspaper Le Monde. Sahaib (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Seems to pass WP:ITNSIGNIF. This is being covered in all major American news outlets, and many non-American outlets, with frequent updates. I was surprised by how quickly this blurb was posted to ITN, but I don't necessarily see that as a problem. To respond to a couple of the objections above:
    (1) Systemic bias is indeed an issue to address, but "US-centrism" is not a good reason to oppose the posting of any given US story, per WP:ITNATA. A better way to address systemic bias would be to nominate more stories from other parts of the world.
    (2) His level of significance is hard to assess objectively and depends on what metric you look at. He was not necessarily a universally famous household name in the US, but I think many who follow US politics, especially in younger generations, had at least heard of him. His article was the #10 most viewed page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Popular pages and #44 on Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Popular pages prior to his death, which I think says something. Pageviews aren't everything, of course. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose on quality. The citations include a lot of social media posts (albeit official accounts, but secondary sources are preferred) and the tabloid TMZ. Only admins can edit it so it's not easy to fix or add more reliable sources. Perhaps the bolded link could be changed to Charlie Kirk or the blurb could be changed to RD. FallingGravity 02:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

[edit]

RD: Sergio Doplicher

[edit]
Article: Sergio Doplicher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sapienza University
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: Italian mathematical physicist. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Article looks good albeit can be expanded
Otto (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 Israeli strike on Hamas headquarters in Doha

[edit]
Article: 2025 Israeli strike on Doha (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Israeli airstrikes hit the Hamas headquarters in Doha, Qatar. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Israel attacks the Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, marking the first known Israeli attack on the country.
News source(s): Al Jazeera [3]
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Not one to give in to blurbing items from ongoing listings, but Israel has targeted another sovereign country. This being the mediating and non-neighboring Qatar I believe raises it to notability even beyond ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as covered in ongoing. As a side note, where is AJ saying Hamas leader was killed? Dont see it. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been on their on the spot coverage from earlier but since corrected or removed. Hence why waiting for such confirmations is critical in these types of events. Masem (t) 21:25, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see how another Israeli attack on Hamas isn't covered by ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose While I see the argument that the nom is making, at the end of the day I agree a bit more with Nfitz in that it being an attack targeting Hamas (rather than Qatar and its leaders/military) puts it under the ongoing item. While the Haniyeh assassination is comparable, we posted that mainly because he of his notability as the leader of Hamas, not because Israel struck Iran. The Kip (contribs) 16:47, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait There seems to be considerable uncertainty about the outcome of the strike so we should wait for the dust to settle. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amenable to waiting for more details, but I'm in favor of posting at some point per nom. While, yes, this attack was on Hamas leadership, it was in fact on Qatar's territory and without their authorization. How exactly things play out from here is TBD, but it does risk involving Qatar proper in the larger Israel-Palestine conflict, at the very least beyond just their prior role as a mediator. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait then strong support; this a huge escalation and is on the top of every news site in the US. But we need to wait for now as things are moving very fast. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait/support, striking the mediator of the conflict is a significant escalation. I'm not sure we need much more than the principle and the inevitable diplomatic fallout. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per most above; see the sheer size of the international reactions. These reactions were primarily focused on how the attack was on Qatari soil, not how it targeted Hamas, and thus I don't believe Ongoing sufficiently covers this. Departure– (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is a massive escalation, and has shown that any pretense of Israel supporting ceasefire negotiations is fully false. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support An intense day in geopolitics, but that doesn't undermine the fact that this is an unusually bold violation of sovereign space by targeting negotiators of a faction. PrimalMustelid (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was surprised that this wasn't already up. This isn't just an attack on Hamas, this is an attack on Qatar. Leaving it in ongoing, leads to questions of neutrality by effectively burying such a notable and politicized event.Basetornado (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important news! Datawikiperson (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 05:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on quality There is zero need for a massive reaction section that basically just has most of the comments finger-wagging at the attack without any actual call to action or the like. That's article bloat that doesn't need to be there. Some reactions, like those actually involved here and the attempted ceasefire (Israel, Qatar, the US etc) make sense. At least some of the others, like with France, Germany and Spain, could be combined without using quotes to say other nations comdemned the attack without bullet-pointing each one. Masem (t) 05:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Maybe it'd be better to split that into a Reactions to article, where more countries like Kazakhstan, Mauritania, Maldives, etc., could be listed, keeping only the more pertinent ones in the parent article; or, not do that and just trim. I personally am not as hostile to the 'bullet point list with flag icons' approach as some, but indeed, it's like half the length of the article now. El_C 05:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem and El C: These are comments that are best directed at Talk:Israeli airstrike on Hamas leadership in Qatar. I've copied them there. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They apply here - its a quality issue being judged for ITN posting. (No, not asking this to be pulled but this needs to be considered in future ITNCs)
And splitting it out to a separate list article makes no sense. the section needs trimming. Reaction sections that just list statements is a lazy approach to trying to bulk up current event articles. Its the equivalent to the "thoughts and prayers" that come after a US mass shooting, statements with no actual actions behind them, despite being a reaction section. Of course the attack was criticized, so the focus should be on possible downstream impacts in the region including any threat of retaliatory action (like the disruption to the ceasefire talks). Masem (t) 12:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what? There was nowhere near a consensus to post this. Especially this rapidly. Consider this a PULL !vote given all the valid arguments against posting it that have been stated above. Most importantly the quality concerns as Masem noted - the current article is a massive attempt to right great wrongs as it provides undue weight to reactions, not to mention the other concerns others have had. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any admin should feel free to pull, I need not be consulted or even notified. But I weighed there being a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS (as such debates often trend), though maybe a bit at the margins in this case. El_C 05:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some quotes of specific parts of the article that (in my view) are clearly RGW violations and any of which should have, on their own, been reason to at least temporarily withhold posting: Israel's vow; Those targeted were involved in negotiations for a ceasefire to the Gaza war - poorly sourced given current information - those targeted have not been confirmed to be a part of specific negotiations. This was too soon, at best. I am not opposed to posting in the near future, but it should not have been posted given the fact that the current article is massive NPOV/RGW violations. To be clear, @El C: I do not think you have done anything wrong - you made a determination based on the information and opinions present here. I still, however, think it's too soon to post this, and that the article needs a lot of work - to the point I think this should be pulled in the meantime. I appreciate that there is sometimes a push to post an article at ITN based on rough consensus even if it's too soon - and I don't fault you for abiding by what seems to be the norm here of post once there's a rough consensus - though I personally think that a "rough consensus" is not sufficient for something we are displaying on our main page - especially for a contentious topic.
This is, as I'm sure everyone knows, a contentious topic. There's good reason it is such. And I think we would all do well to give more than ~12 hours before we post articles (about breaking news) in a CTOP to ITN. While ITN is a slight exception, we are not news. It's more important that we ensure that articles we post to the main page are, at a bare minimum, at least comprehensive and not being used as an attempt to RGW. There's at least three instances (that I identified above) that this article does not meet that criteria in my view. So it should be pulled until there is enough vision on the article to correct such attempts at RGW while it is on the main page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wary that articles that contentious will just not get posted because by the time there's such resolution, it would no longer be a news item. Thus, a nominal state which tends to be below average is to be expected. I also don't think there should be a 12-hour (or any other) clock imposed on articles or sets of articles. But that's a substantive and well-reasoned argument for pulling, and a valid view for how ITN should operate, especially for CTOP subject matters. El_C 06:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing anything in favour of "those targeted have not been confirmed to be a part of specific negotiations" in the article, we have "Those targeted were involved in negotiations for a ceasefire to the Gaza war and an Israeli-Palestinian prisoner-hostage exchange. [cited to BBC] ... According to Reuters, the strike was expected to result in the temporary or permanent end of ceasefire negotiations in the war. Frank Lowenstein, the former U.S. special envoy for the Middle East, stated that the strike signified the Israeli government had not only lost interest in negotiating a ceasefire but was sufficiently confident that the negotiations would become irrelevant to proceed with assassinating the Hamas negotiating team. [cited to AP]"
Considering this was a failed assassination attempt, the only reason it is notable is due to the strong reactions and unprecedented nature of attacking Qatar. While the reactions can be trimmed, I am not seeing anything there justifying a straight up pulling. Similarly the "vow" part is not really a strong reason either, section titles can be easily changed and some may argue that it is POV from the Israeli side. Gotitbro (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that maybe I'm not 100% up to date on the breaking news... but is it really a "failed assassination attempt"? I question both "failed" (i.e. did they truly fail, even if they didn't kill all targets) and "assassination attempt". To put it bluntly, targeting the military leadership of an organization you are at war with is not an "assassination attempt". It's a side effect of war. Regardless, those things being clarified (such as with further sourcing) is another reason for my argument to pull it temporarily as a too soon posting. In any case, I cannot fault the admin for posting it because I accept that my view that waiting to post to ITN/main page is better is not the overarching consensus.
Regardless, I think improvements are necessary - and even since I made my original reply here, they are ongoing. That's the beauty of Wikipedia, of course. If this doesn't get pulled before it's improved to the point that pulling is unnecessary, I'm all for it - but I'll still encourage everyone to, especially in contentious topics, ask questions first and ensure that what we post on the main page is as close to perfect as possible - even if it's breaking news. In my opinion (which I appreciate may be completely against the consensus), it's better to wait even 24+ hours to post something "in the news" than to post an article sooner that is so breaking as to potentially fall victim to people using it to RGW while it's being heavily edited with breaking information. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Failed": the article is currently under Category:Failed assassination attempts in Asia and considering that all of the high profile targets survived, I would say its apt and my charazterization of it followed as such. About war, see Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (also Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler) etc.
I can see your concerns about article quality but don' think they rise to the level of a pull, a pain to the process should only be had when the issues are very serious.
I agree about a time limit, a minimum one generally and ones for CTOPS specifically, and similar proposals have followed but I don't think this is going to gain traction among editors anytime soon. Gotitbro (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "valid" arguments above were shortly after it occurred. It was fair enough at the time for it to be a wait. More has come out since. In addition, those reactions in the article are part of the reason why this is so noteworthy. The majority of voices were in support, for valid reasons. This feels more like a pull to bury it, rather than in good faith. Basetornado (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Haru Urara

[edit]
Article: Haru Urara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Straits Times
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: RIP to the sweetest racehorse o7 Tofusaurus (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ready - quite a few CN tags.

Support - issues addressed.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

[edit]

(Closed) 2025 Ramot Junction shooting

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Curbon7 (talk) 23:44, 9 September 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: 2025 Ramot Junction shooting (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Eight people are killed and 21 others are wounded in a mass shooting targeting Israelis by Palestinian militants in Jerusalem. (Post)
News source(s): (BBC News) (CNN)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: As the 2023 Neve Yaakov shooting was posted. ArionStar (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The other shooting was posted because it happened prior to the Israel-Palestine war. This is covered by ongoing and is just yet another attack in an already-brutal conflict. EF5 01:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what's 8 deaths compared to 86,996? This is already covered by ongoing. Scuba 02:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jerusalem covered by the Gaza war (without West Bank)? ArionStar (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was that only Gaza was under siege, Israeli incursions in the West Bank during the Gaza war. Gotitbro (talk) 08:24, 9 September 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) Norwegian parliamentary election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Norwegian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Norway, the Labour Party, led by the prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre (pictured), wins the most seats in the Storting. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Norwegian parliamentary election, the centre-left bloc wins a majority of the seats in the Storting.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Norwegian parliamentary election, the centre-left bloc, led by current prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre (pictured) wins a majority of the seats in the Storting.
News source(s): the Guardian Reuters
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.

Nominator's comments: General election in Norway. Haers6120 (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITN/R and of sufficient quality. Scuba 02:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I propose an alternate photo/image. Prime Minister Gahr Store in April 2025.jpg is a better headshot of Støre from around the same time. (Sorry if I'm proposing this incorrectly! I'm not used to participating on this page.) EdoAug (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support election is ready to post. Sahaib (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb2 I have added an aftermath section which could perhaps be expanded further. Ideally we would also have a longer background section, which detailed the campaign itself. Gust Justice (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 05:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Murder of Iryna Zarutska

[edit]
Stale BLP violation; consensus to post will not develop. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:52, 8 September 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: Murder of Iryna Zarutska (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska is murdered on public transport in Charlotte, North Carolina by a fare-jumper with a lengthy criminal history. (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.
 2601:406:4680:9A27:19AC:BD47:E67C:24D2 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability as a RD nomination, as Iryna Zarutska isn't notable independently of her murder and doesn't have a standalone page. Also oppose blurb – while the event has had some impact, it is far from the notability threshold we expect of a "death as the story" blurb. Additionally, the wording of the blurb should carefully take into account WP:BLPCRIME – our article still refers to the fare-jumper as "the suspect" rather than "the murderer". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:01, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this is currently at AFD (likely to be kept). However, oppose blurb as this is not significant enough for the main page. As with the mushroom case below, we generally do not post "local crime news". I doubt this is a good RD as well. Natg 19 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I can't even begin to fathom who the stabbing of a single transit rider is worth mentioning in any article - let alone ITN. Nfitz (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - somebody is killed while on transit - so what? EF5 21:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a horrible crime and a tragedy, to be sure. However, as pointed out above, the killing of a single, otherwise non-notable person by another non-notable person is not the type of thing we usually post on ITN. Additionally, the murder itself is now technically stale because it happened back on August 22. Perhaps the story should instead be the release of the video on September 5. If there is very notable public outcry, for example along the lines of the Floyd protests, then we could hypothetically post that as a story, but I don't think the reaction so far rises to that level of significance. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose before I get crucified here, this crime is godawful and the person who did it (I'm not saying anyone per WP:BLP) should get whatever North Carolina's worst punishment is. However there are few crimes by strangers in the street that could ever be considered the biggest new story in the world. I don't think even the works of the worst serial killers, like Kemper, Bundy, etc, were the world's biggest new stories as they were happening. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, close, and remove the nomination as a BLP violation. I'm opposed anyway because the murder of a single private citizen, no matter how tragic, is not the stuff of ITN. But the headline makes a claim not proven in court. None of this should be here. (And bluntly, fare-dodging has nothing intrinsically to do with homicide - this is a weird framing, even leaving aside the obvious BLP problem.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Random killing that the far-right is trying to dramatize based on the killer's race and the victim's nationality. --Mika1h (talk) 23:26, 8 September 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) Nepalese protests/PM resignation

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: September 2025 Nepalese protests (talk · history · tag) and K. P. Sharma Oli (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 19 people are killed and more than a hundred wounded by the police duirng anti-government protests in Nepal's capital Kathmandu. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Nepalese PM, K. P. Sharma Oli (pictured), resigns after protests about corruption and the shutdown of social media.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Prime minister K. P. Sharma Oli and other officials resign amid deadly protests in Nepal, while government ministers and buildings are assaulted.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Prime minister K. P. Sharma Oli and other members of the government resign after a day of anti-corruption protests.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ Prime minister K. P. Sharma Oli resign amid protests, while government ministers and buildings are assaulted.
Alternative blurb V: ​ Protests erupt in Nepal over governmental corruption, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister K. P. Sharma Oli.
News source(s): CBC BBC Sky News Reuters NDTV The Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: The home minister Ramesh Lekhak has already resigned. Deadly and significant protests for the country.

Although maybe hold off on including the president: his status remains unclear. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and @Admins willing to post ITN: It must be added on September 9, since the resignations happened today. ArionStar (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

François Bayrou, French Prime Minister, to resign

[edit]
Article: François Bayrou (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ François Bayrou to resign as Prime Minister of France following a failed confidence vote. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Sébastien Lecornu is appointed Prime Minister of France, following the resignation of François Bayrou.
News source(s): [9] [10] [11]
Credits:
Added alt1 with mention of new PM. Natg 19 (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should be added on September 9. ArionStar (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brian Dayett

[edit]
Article: Brian Dayett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Newsweek
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: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced on this date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, I did not see that you already nominated. Natg 19 (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Leongatha mushroom murders sentencing

[edit]
Consensus is not going to develop to post. -- Kicking222 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 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: Leongatha mushroom murders (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Convicted killer Erin Patterson is sentenced to 3 life sentences and 25 years with a 33-year non-parole period for the Leongatha mushroom murders. (Post)
News source(s): BBC ABC The Guardian
Credits:
To clarify, the trial was not posted, but I still disagree with posting. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 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.

September 7

[edit]

(Posted) RD: John Penton (motorcyclist)

[edit]
Article: John Penton (motorcyclist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 131 Off-Road
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: American Hall of Fame motorcycle racer. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on quality Kowal2701 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 FIVB Women's Volleyball World Championship

[edit]
Article: 2025 FIVB Women's Volleyball World Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In volleyball, Italy defeat Turkey to win the FIVB Women's Volleyball World Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In volleyball, the the FIVB Women's Volleyball World Championship concludes with Italy winning in the final.
News source(s): One Sports, Olympics
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.

 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 06:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Carlo Acutis

[edit]
Consensus will not develop to post. Stephen 01:00, 8 September 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: Carlo Acutis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Carlo Acutis is canonized by Pope Leo XIV, becoming the first millennial canonized as a saint. (Post)
News source(s): BBC The New York Times The Guardian Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: I am giving this a shot, might be worthy to post on ITN. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although it's hardly WP:IDONTLIKEIT (an essay, anyways) - it simply isn't notable enough in my opinion, although I'm an atheist and maybe am just missing something. EF5 14:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to 128.x. but seems fair on your reason. ROY is WAR Talk! 14:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I was just explaining my vote because I piggybacked off theirs. EF5 14:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 128.x here: I gave my reason: "Utterly pointless trivia". To expand, rather unnecessarily in my opinion, because really, this is all quite obvious: I'm happy for Saint Carlo and all his supporters and all that, but the big deal seems to be that he was a millennial social-media-savvy teenager, which is certainly interesting, but just a detail along the way. Better than clickbait, yes, in that it's real and, as I stated, interesting. But I don't see ITN-level worthiness or relevance. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support first Millennial saint is a big deal. Scuba 15:13, 7 September 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.

Shigeru Ishiba resigns

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Shigeru Ishiba (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Prime Minister of Japan Shigeru Ishiba announces his intention to resign. (Post)
News source(s): ABC News Reuters
Credits:

 Tofusaurus (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Wait: He has just announced his intent to, it doesn't mean he has yet. When his successor is known and then appointed, then it should be considered. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We posted the resignation intention of Justin Trudeau. Wait. Per nom above. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 10:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, wait until a new PM is appointed Trudeu is a bad precedent, Johnson is a bad precedent. We must cut it at some point. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a bad precedent? There's a difference between a highly prominent G7 leader who has been in power for near a decade, and/or had a very high profile before they became PM, and someone who has only been in power for months. It's what's in the news. And I see no mention of this in the morning papers. What's the timeframe for replacement? Nfitz (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sets a bad precedent because it implies that simply announcing a resignation (which is what was posted in the case of Johnson and Trudeau) is a direct ticket to the Main Page, when it has no encyclopedic value, unlike the succession to the office of PM. We are not a breaking news portal and we should not get carried away by journalistic hyperventilation. Whether someone govern for two months or 15 years. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Pierre Trudeau's February 29th 1984 announcement of his intention to resign remains more notable than the events of his replacement and ultimate. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with the waits. They will hold an emergency election to select his replacement, he will continue to serve as PM until then. That election makes sense to post as the standard ITNR. Masem (t) 12:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for when the exchange actually takes place. Scuba 14:58, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wait for replacement.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:415D:249B:194A:C307 (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wave of waits. ArionStar (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rosa Tarlovsky de Roisinblit

[edit]
Article: Rosa Tarlovsky de Roisinblit (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo (Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo), Página 12, France 24
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: Human rights activist, vice president and founding member of the Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo Association. JuliánDelRusso (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ 64.188.91.212 (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maru (cat)

[edit]
Article: Maru (cat) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): sisinmaru.com, guinnessworldrecords.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: Internet famous cat, had previously held the Guinness World Record for most YouTube video views of an individual animal. Death announcement is currently only a primary source (his owner). 1brianm7 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose until we get some secondary sources. CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, do you mean until secondary sources report on his death or are you opposed because the article is sourced too much from primary sources? I have removed two uncited paragraphs and added two cited paragraphs in their place since you made this reply. If its the former, I haven't heard of any such requirement (though this is my first ITN Nom, so I could be wrong), and if its the latter, I believe the article is mostly sourced and at present the only things that might not be suitably sourced are "During the two-week trial period, Maru and Hana got along very well and Hana began to appear in videos on the mugumogu channel" and "... but only in Japanese." 1brianm7 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We would want actual news coverage of the cat's death, not from a primary source, to show this is "in the news". Masem (t) 17:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see it being reliably sourced (I would say this counts, a secondary source wouldn't be able to do more to substantiate than listen to the owner), not the publication of obituaries, as a requirement. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    per WP:ITNRD, while the death of a notable cat is something we can post, and there's no major issues with the article itself, we need the article to be "Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death." Primary sources are not reliable for this purpose. It may take a day or so for this news to filter to actual news sites, as I'm aware of Maru's popularity on the Internet. Masem (t) 17:51, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the cat's owner is one thing. I myself have not seen much outside coverage on this (though maybe I just need to look further). CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve stumbled upon posts from fans in the Maru and online cat spheres, but I haven’t found an online obituary yet. Supposedly it may take a few days, though I don’t really see the problem with pre-empting it, besides 1brianm7 (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most of the sourcing for the article does not meet WP:RS, as they're Youtube sources with some links to Amazon for the books about Maru. As such does not meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree that most of the sourcing does not meet RS. The two sentences about Maru’s siblings, her death, the Freshsteps (which I will soon remove found source), and the second book. Everybody agrees the two formers are accurate (will look for better sources), and I am struggling to find an English source talking about a book only published in Japan. I think it will meet ITNQuality once I have the time to edit it. 1brianm7 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything in the fame section is now cited, except for the fact that Keyboard Cat and Nora were in the EW video, I'll look for a source on that. 1brianm7 (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from nominator As of right now, everything in the article is adequately sourced. The only non-independent sources are from Maru's owner's blog and they are to support the fact that she had adopted two other cats who lived with Maru, and of course to support the fact that Maru has passed. I do not believe there are any ITN quality concerns, and I plan on adding another paragraph or two from reliable sources later today. I think that there is no need to wait for an independent obituary to be published. (I forgot to sign this initially) 1brianm7 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Guinness has published an obituary, I've added it tot the article. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CREditzWiki @Joseph2302 The article is now entirely sourced to reliable sources and the death has been covered in Guinness and People, both reliable secondary sources. At present, two YT videos are cited because the article states how many views those videos have received, a video from Guinness is cited, though all of its content is also cited to their text obituary. The only claims cited to primary sources are that Maru's owner adopted two other cats and said one of them got along with Maru. I am uncomfortable removing them, since much of the reaction from fans I have seen is sympathy for those two cats. Are there any outstanding objections to the article appearing in RD? 1brianm7 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Impressed. Changing my vote to support. Well done! CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'm glad my first experience with ITN could be with such a delightful subject. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sourcing now seems adequate. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 6

[edit]

RD: David Baltimore

[edit]
Article: David Baltimore (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: Decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Christoph von Dohnányi

[edit]
Article: Christoph von Dohnányi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Der Standard
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: German conductor, music director of the Cleveland Orchestra Grimes2 11:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rick Davies

[edit]
Article: Rick Davies (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [12][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.

 WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Davey Johnson

[edit]
Article: Davey Johnson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sports, MLB, Baltimore Sun
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 baseball player and World Series-winning manager. Between this and Dryden, it hasn’t been a fun day. The Kip (contribs) 14:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ken Dryden

[edit]
Article: Ken Dryden (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL
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: Former ice hockey player and Canadian Liberal politician Rushtheeditor (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Legendary goaltender who backstopped the team’s 1970s dynasty to six Stanley Cups. Rest in peace to a hockey legend. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 05:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bibliography and Awards and honors sections are mostly uncited, and there are scattered areas of prose which are also uncited. The Political career could also be a little more substantive with a few things he did in office; for example, the section notes that his tenure as social minister was well-received, but does not expand on what he did in that role. Curbon7 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality So this is how I find out, while I’m in Montreal… Absolutely massive loss for the hockey world, but the article needs citation work. The Kip (contribs) 14:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 5

[edit]

RD: Barbara Jakobson

[edit]
Article: Barbara Jakobson (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: American art collector. Obit published 5 September. Thriley (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ruth Weiss

[edit]
Article: Ruth Weiss (writer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deutsche Welle
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: Jewish writer who escaped Nazi Germany to South Africa where Jews were also not welcome and she met apartheid. She fought all kinds of racism for life (101) with different means, in SA, Rhodesia, London, Germany, Zimbabwe, finally writing books for young adults and memoirs. - There was plenty about books in the article, but little biography. I added, but there's more in German, - help wanted. At this point, at least everything seems sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mark Volman

[edit]
Article: Mark Volman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety People
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: Co-founder of The Turtles and Flo & Eddie. 240F:7A:6253:1:3491:73EF:EAE5:D259 (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was attracted by the nominator's mention of the The Turtles and the article was quite interesting. But running this person's name without any context or description at RD seems pointless. The good news is that there have been over 100K readers on the news so the other parts of the Internet are getting the job done by getting the word out. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Orange tagged with numerous failed verification tags scattered about. Discography missing some citations. Curbon7 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropic lawsuit

[edit]
Article: Artificial intelligence and copyright (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Artificial intelligence research company Anthropic settled with multiple authors for $1.5 billion over copyright infringement over training their AI models, the largest such copyright-related payout in the United States. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes WSJ
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This might not be a massive amount of money in terms of other types of lawsuits, but as sources are describing, this is an extremely significant point in the debate of AI and copyright (which is why I'm linking the article that I know is in decent shape for posting, not Anthropic's), and is the largest amount related to copyright. (Note that there was another side on this case which ruled that buying physical books and scanning those in was within fair use, but this settlement was using unlicensed digital copies). Masem (t) 20:36, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I do not think posting this would set a good precedent. For example, Google just got hit with a $3.5 billion fine from the EU, why this and not that, just because of copyright? What makes copyright law special? - Indefensible (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Samoan election

[edit]
Article: 2025 Samoan general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Laʻauli Leuatea Schmidt, leader of the FAST political party wins the Samoan general election in a landslide, and is soon to be appointed as prime minister. (Post)
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.

Nominator's comments: Is on ITN/R in terms of politics and elections as a new person is elected a leader/head of government of a nation. Article seems fine, no tags, no vandalism. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:58E4:EB7B:8388:616C (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Already posted. Although, the blurb could be updated to add the prime minister-designate. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the election was already posted, but the blurb should be changed to also include the name of the prime minister. Scuba 19:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar not yet. Although Laʻauli Leuatea Schmidt is presumed to be Samoa's next prime minister, there has been no movement yet to confirm this. Samoa is a parliamentary republic, and the prime minister is chosen by Parliament, taking into account its composition. Parliament has not yet been convened, the elected members have not taken office, and therefore the winner of the elections has not yet undergone a parliamentary process of election and investiture. Therefore, the blurb, as it is currently posted, is as accurate as possible. Therefore, this nomination is not necessary. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) New Thai PM

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Anutin Charnvirakul (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Anutin Charnvirakul (pictured) is appointed as the new Prime Minister of Thailand following the removal of Paetongtarn Shinawatra by the Constitutional Court. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
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.

Nominator's comments: The article is well cited except for the "Royal decorations" section. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 11:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait he hasn't been inaugurated into office yet, he is Prime Minister Designate, not really PM yet. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:58E4:EB7B:8388:616C (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I agree to wait, at least the royal appointment, which is not issued yet, would confirm his premiership. --Wutkh (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I have zero clue on their process, if this is equivalent to, say, winning a democratic election and there is zero barriers between being named and being inaugurated, we probably should post this now as we would with a election winner. If there are gotchas that could impede the inaugation, then we should wait for that point. Masem (t) 12:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not equivalent to winning an election; it's more like when the US vice-president succeeds to the presidency if the president dies or resigns, or when the prime minister in a Westminster-system government changes because the ruling party chooses a new leader. For me, it's the functional role that's crucial: if the PM has to be inaugurated in order to exercise power, we wait for that to happen. If the inauguration is a mere formality and the PM has executive authority as soon as the appointment is made, then we should post as soon as we're ready. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I'm checking - that barring extremely unusual events, if this selections assures that he will be PM, the inauguration being all be ceremonial at that point. If so, we should post now. Masem (t) 14:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a caretaker/lame-duck appointment as the BBC report says that he can't introduce legislation and has to call an election within months. The PM position seems fairly powerless anyway, as the army and court hold the real power. This doesn't seem to be the sort of leadership that ITN/R is expecting. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't a caretaker. He has full prime ministerial powers (or will have, once officially appointed by the king) and certainly can introduce legislation. Indeed, if he weren't going to get full powers there would be no point to the deal he struck with the People's Party that allowed him to get the necessary votes here in the first place (Specifically, a full PM unquestionably can dissolve parliament but caretakers possibly couldn't - this is a currently controversial point as the current caretaker tried and was rejected by the Privy Council). He will face an uphill battle to get legislation passed, but only in the same way any minority government does. He doesn't actually have to call an election within months either - this is part of the deal with PP but it's a political agreement, nothing legally binding, so he can renege on it once he's in. They will of course try to bring down his government with a no-confidence motion if he does so, but this isn't guaranteed to succeed. It's not unrealistic at all for him to, let's say, end up striking deals with other parties to ensure his safety if he breaks the one with PP, and end up staying long past the four months he promised them. PointlessUsername (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per this comment. Rushtheeditor (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Baddiewinkle

[edit]
Article: Baddiewinkle (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People
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: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced on this date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joseph McNeil

[edit]
Article: Joseph McNeil (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
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.

 240F:7A:6253:1:CF6:DBB2:230F:3E03 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Katharine, Duchess of Kent

[edit]
Article: Katharine, Duchess of Kent (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News the Telegraph BBC 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: Member of the British Royal Family, wife of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent. ItsShandog (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - article is of good quality and I can't see any issues with it.
harrz talk 11:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) Myanmar Civil war onto ongoing or Sudanese civil war off

[edit]
Article: Myanmar civil war (2021–present) (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

Nominator's comments: already outlined my Reasons why , so pls look through the arguments already made. That said I do think there is an bias in the ongoing events on how what conflict page is chosen. That imo requires a broader discussion to solve. There were several counter points that I found reinforced this view.

My proposal here is to either A) Add the Myanmar Civil War article or B) Remove the Sudanese one. If one goes with the @Masem standard it should be B). (See reasons why wikilink). But for simplicities sake I'm going to propose A) Add Myanmar Civil War to the ongoing page.

Here's my first post from that talk page: "Why is this not listed in the ongoing wars section? I've previously seen it flicker back and forth, added and removed, like an Yoyo. The conflict isn't as media sexy in English language media. However, if you check handy wiki articles like List of ongoing armed conflicts, you'll see the conflict goes pretty hot in comparison. I'm also the creator and maintainer of Operation 1111, and I can tell you there is constant combat. So far, I see more arguments for its adding than not. As you can observe from the conflict list linked above, it fills the definition of Uppsala Conflict Data Program criteria for an major conflict, not only this, as per the same article you can see that it was an deadlier (unfortunetly) conflict than the already mentioned (on the wiki mainp age) Sudanese Civil War for the year 2024. The area where the conflict falls behind is in popular english language media coverage, like your fox news, cnn, bbc etc. Probably bc said nation states have fewer interests invested there, thus ppl in these countries also care less. If my assumption is correct, and correct me if I'm wrong, then I'd argue media sexyness is a bad criteria to follow and based on information pointed to above, this article should be added to the main page. Which is for clarity what I do wish and propose. Thank you."

As said above, on the talk page I had also wished to discuss the standards of how an article makes it onto the ongoing section, however @Khuft made an suggestion to post here too about it, to make an proposal out of it. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concern here is the article here does not show the frequency of updates to merit ongoing, with the last 50 edits covering 3to 4 months of events (and that's not counting which edits are significant additions). The event may be ongoing but we also expect the article to demonstrate near daily updates. Masem (t) 22:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that overall activity is split over multiple subpages, including "timeline" pages. They (i.e. Myanmar, Gaza, Russia, Sudan, and possibly Maghreb as well from List of ongoing armed conflicts) should all be listed. If you include Operation 1111 then it definitely has activity to meet the requirement. - Indefensible (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you mean Operation 1111 as OP 1107 definitely hasn't had significant updates. Also can see from the timeline that that seems regularly updated, so that alleviates my concerns on the updates. The main conflict page could be written more holistically to defer details to these other parties, which would help see that. Masem (t) 23:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 1111. The problem there is if you duplicate or add too much material to the main page, then it defeats the purpose of having the subpage. This is kind of a systemic design question. I would remove the "timeline" links from the box to save space, and replace them with the Myanmar link. Giving 2 links for a subject versus 0 for another is kind of imbalanced and unfair to be honest. - Indefensible (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the main page should have every detail (that's why we have Summary Style), just that I don't get a summary-style read of the main page, with a bit too much detail about individual events that are not major points in the conflict (which are fine on subpages). Masem (t) 01:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1107 is down to sources/media outlets dropping the name and just blanket using Op1111. Also it is true that not all is put on the Myanmar CW main page, simply bc there were discussions of it becoming too large. As a solution we decided to pawn off many of the details to daughter articles, like 1111 1027 etc. If you also follow the news, all the sectors of the war are active and there is news reporting on it. Not all daughter articles are as actively updated as others though. Even though the Op1027 isn't as activly updated, it itself has gotten articles that are part of it, but cover an battle of it like Battle of Maungdaw, while Op1111 sorta is an all-in-one article now for most Kayah war related stuff. Probably bc Op1111 is mostly kept up to date by one guy now (me), not counting ce edits and such, but stuff adding new information. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any personal stake in this but I applaud your efforts to keep this subject covered. - Indefensible (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it deserves to be covered, I too don't have an stake in the conflict beyond editing the article and occasionally throwing edits back to the main page. There is enough information for all other articles and fronts to be updated too, but I trust the universe that someone else will cover those. And if ever someone else wants to take over from me or fix my probably insane amount of spelling mistakes etc. I would warmly welcome it :D. I though it would've been an few month long battle and project when it started :D Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it definitely should be covered. Editing is a kind of stake, but without you keeping it updated maybe no one else would have. - Indefensible (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an stake, in the topic at least.  :)
Just to add to the discussion above on how active this civil war is;
Op1027: https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/analysis/uwsa-neutered-myanmars-revolutionary-driving-force-derailed-by-china.html
Karen: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-junta-throws-everything-at-offensive-to-recapture-asian-highway.html
Kachin: https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-junta-counterattacks-in-waingmaw-sparking-fierce-clashes-with-kia.html
Despite Op1111 maybe being active in edits, the other fronts of the war are in many ways more hot atm. And due to that higher barrier of entry most news sites in English that cover it are usually from south east Asia. Probably bc the impact of it effects them is some way. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, Im looking at Timeline of the Myanmar civil war (2021–present) which shows good frequency of updates and linked out of one of the main body navboxes for the conflict. Masem (t) 03:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per the reasons why discussions above and per the Masem standard he layed out as 'near daily' edits, as show there only Gaza and Ukraine fill this criteria. If this is it, then instead of adding Myanmar, imo Sudan should be removed. Imo, instead of going with x y or z wiki editors news tastes there should be an standard and if a b or c article fills it implement it for that. Also as to the conflicts themselves, the journalistic barrier of entry is higher in Myanmar, as part of Op1111, the battle over Mobye, there was an BBC article or reporting if memory serves, where they had to be smuggled into the country in order to report and also not the most comfy or secure such. Thus its also an factor, Ukraine is easier to get to, stay in Kiev and report about the front far away in relative safety and comfort. Plus the other reasons. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Close - should be two seperate nominations for two different topics. This will only create confusion. (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2025

I don't know why this wasn't closed procedurally. But I'm striking my comment to oppose below. Nfitz (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

move to talk it is a discussion on what should be, doesn't need to be for the merits of the article or news until someting comes out of discussion,2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:C8:6A07:3902:F792 (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically I did state "My proposal here is to either A) Add the Myanmar Civil War article or B) Remove the Sudanese one. If one goes with the @Masem standard it should be B). (See reasons why wikilink). But for simplicities sake I'm going to propose A) Add Myanmar Civil War to the ongoing page." And I added the Myanmar civil war wiki link as article to be added in the original template. I just happen to discuss alternatives to the proposal and maybe in-case the proposal fails there is already something else to think of. :) Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing armed conflicts:
  Major wars (10,000 or more)
  Minor wars (1,000–9,999)
  Conflicts (100–999)
  Skirmishes and clashes (1–99)
  • Link to list The proposal seems clear enough and is worth discussing. I oppose a procedural close because the nomination is primarily about the addition of the nominated article. The removal of Sudan is an optional extra. But I'm not convinced that either of them is sufficiently prominent in the news to warrant a specific entry. My view is that Ongoing should have a link to the list of ongoing armed conflicts because that is comprehensive, reasonably high quality and gets regular updates. Many of these wars are ongoing for decades and kill thousands of people every year. Listing them systematically is an encyclopedic approach which provides good content and context in an NPOV way. Cherry-picking particular wars for special attention is more misleading because it gives the impression that those are the only major wars which are happening and that's quite wrong. See the map for the big picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really think this is a better solution in the long run, too (along with listing Portal:CE without an easter egg link), as Ongoing was meant for events with a more finite run period and where we knew we had near-daily coverage that we would be otherwise flooding the blurbs with. Using that link also would mean that we would not be beholden to "already covered by ongoing" for key events that emerge from these conflicts (mind you, those key events to be shown at ITN should be seen as critical milestones, not just major attacks). Masem (t) 12:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was thinking the same. That page would have to be high quality though. Although the nice thing about opposing noms as covered by ongoing is that it's less callous than opposing on significance Kowal2701 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New to ITN noms. Is there a way to keep Sudan but add Myanmar? CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there absolutely is, the problem is the box is starting to get too crowded. And the question becomes what about the Maghreb and potentially other conflicts? So a better solution needs to be designed, that's what Andrew suggested. - Indefensible (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything worth removing in favor of Myanmar? I was thinking Russian Invasion of Ukraine, as there haven't been many developments there lately (at least that I know of). I have a feeling (WP:CRYSTAL) that something will happen in Myanmar any day now that will be worth adding it to ITN. And yes, this is just WP:CRYSTAL but it shouldn't matter all too much just yet. CREditzWiki, editor (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, link to list, essentially since list already applies the UCDP standards, would be an sufficient solution, plus it would remove the yoyo issue from the main page where conflicts pop-in-out. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As to things happening in Myanmar any day now, they are constantly happening, the issue, and thus my original point above was, this rarely breaks the US-UK-Western EU mainstream news agencies ceiling. Ultimately that criteria is based on someones subjective feeling on what is important enough. BBC looks through an British interest, cultural sensitivity, US though theirs, barrier of entry higher etc etc. Wiki editors only reading BBC world news as an example are in-directly further affected by this. On an on. As to Myanmar, Tatmadaw have recently been making significant gains, taking towns, but does this break the ceiling? Like this BBC reporting https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tD4Fg08c_R0 In broad strokes, these media outlets usually care only once every ~~6 months or so. In that report you get an picture of what I've been talking about. The reporter had to basically smuggle himself into the territory for an 10 trip. This is in contrast to Ukraine. The stuff in that report, the places, like Mobye itself, is today in Tatmadaw hands. Kennet Mattfolk (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not be appropriate to remove the other entries in my opinion. The best way I think is to remove the current "timeline" links since their subjects are currently getting double coverage in the box. - Indefensible (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted as blurb) RD/Blurb: Giorgio Armani

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Giorgio Armani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Italian fashion designer Giorgio Armani (pictured) dies at the age of 91. (Post)
News source(s): Sky News London Evening Standard
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: Italian Fashion Designer ItsShandog (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, way unsourced. Masem (t) 13:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, i would support a blurb here but the quality issues seem very steep. I would recommend strengthening the influence (mostly reorganizing) so the reason why a blurb is clearly established in one section. They are there but scattered around. Masem (t) 19:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Currently expanding a legacy section. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is much better, thank you. Prose quality is still pretty shaky. I tweaked it a little myself; I'll look again in the morning. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally Supporting Blurb Article is in rough shape right now and quality needs to be addressed. Otherwise, I support the blurbing of him per the other supports above, household name and arguably a transformative figure. Support RD Hungry403 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is in a better shape so I fully support the blurb now (even though it already has been blurbed) Hungry403 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability; As the head of a global, household brand he’d probably be nudging towards a blurb on that alone but as the legacy section shows he was more important and influential than that. 2A00:23C8:A6D7:6E01:A080:940D:9C70:F0C8 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD Looks adequate for posting. Oppose blurb While certainly a well known and prominent figure in his field, I don't think he was the Nelson Mandela of men's fashion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary I think he was the Mandela of the fashion industry if not the Hawking or perhaps his own person? As the legacy section shows, he essentially transformed the idea of wearing suits and was a transformative figure in terms of red carpet/celebrity fashion. He’s been called the leading figure of modern fashion and a revolutionary figure in the industry as well, something the article does establish I’d say. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. An iconic and transformative figure in fashion. As NYT writes about Armani, "a designer who rewrote the rules of fashion not once but twice in his lifetime,"[14], and as BBC says, "the first designer since Coco Chanel to bring about a lasting change in the way people dress."[15] Nsk92 (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted consensus is for a blurb. Stephen 00:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull since there's no separate article for the death, which makes it not notable as an event. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of all the death blurbs we’ve posted this year, a solid number of them didn’t have death articles. Usually the one of the arguments about blurbing deaths is the impact these individuals had on their respective fields and if their articles establish such notability/influence. Armani’s article, at least I think, does just that. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If a death is not notable enough for its own article, it's (generally) not notable enough for ITN. Old man dies, and all. Some deaths are worth posting because of their direct effect - those of serving heads of state, or assassinations. Occasionally, very occasionally, you can justify one for a private citizen or retired politician. But a fashion designer? It might be news in Italy, but certainly not globally. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero requirement for a separate death article, and it can be disruptive to keep trying to insist there such a requirement when that is not at all among the guidelines. Masem (t) 05:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an absolute requirement, but I would say that it's a good first-order test of whether someone is notable enough for a death blurb. As you well know, I think ITN is far too liberal with them, partially because "impact on a field" is an infinitely movable goalpost and also because of topic provincialism (no matter how revolutionary an underwater basket-weaver you were, that's just not a world-changing life story) This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a requirement and in many cases would be an unnecessary WP:CFORK. There are 3 situations for people meeting WP:ITNRDBLURB, and only "death as the main story" criteria would be appropriate for creating death articles. Transformative figures dying of old age don't need separate articles, however they can still meet the criteria of transformative figures- which Armani does. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This man influenced everyday's appearance of hundreds of millions of people, re-wrote the books on formal and smart-casual dressing and exerted a major shift in the clothing industry, especially in countries with cheap labour where millions of people work for subsistence. So, it doesn't really seem that his field is provincial.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this. I know very little about fashion, but as soon as I read on BBC News that he'd died, I immediately thought that this would be a successful "death blurb" nomination, hence why I added the blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only requirement is a sufficient update to some article. Also, the way to fight to make sure "impact on a field" avoids being a movable goalpost is to make sure the article has that information and is well sourced (which in this case, TDKR did a good job of improve the Legacy section to help with this). We do have too many cases where a blurb is pushed based on a bunch of handwaving of importance without actual demonstration of that importance in the article. Masem (t) 12:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but if a really notable Magic: the Gathering player dies - someone who completely revolutionized the meta, say - I could find two dozen reliable sources written by topic experts easily enough, but I think even the MtG players among us would agree that said person should not count for a deathblurb even though they did have a revolutionary impact on their field. Now, you might argue that fashion is more important, but where are we drawing the line? I think the best place to draw it is if it directly bears upon national economies or matters of state, since everyone can agree those are important This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like everyone else is agreeing that fashion is pretty important. You need to actually have a stronger theory behind your crusade here if it's ever going to actually be successful. I appreciate that you actually took the time to explain yourself in this occasion, but you're going to have to actually write out your take here into an essay, and try to convince people to your side there, instead of constantly putting up these quixotic fights. Parabolist (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I will. Perhaps I'll do both. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for a separate death article. You are, bluntly, lying to the editor base every time you claim otherwise. As Joseph2302 rightly observes, it would in fact be a violation of WP:CFORK in this and many other cases in which you present this spurious claim. Please stop. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not to incentivize forks, it's to clamp down on excessive liberality with death blurbs This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven’t read it lately, I’d suggest you read WP:DISRUPT. Take heed. Jusdafax (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Streameast

[edit]
WP:SNOW close; no consensus to post, no support past the nom, and the article is at AFD. (non-admin closure) Departure– (talk) 18:57, 4 September 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: Streameast (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The world's largest pirate sports streaming service is closed by a police raid. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Streameast, an illegal sport streaming service, closes following a police raid.
News source(s): BBC, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I was surprised to find that we didn't have an article about this and so have made a start. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WE posted the conviction of the Pirate Bay operators. We posted both the conviction and the shutdown of Megaupload, but the latter was made more significant by Anonymous staging various attacks to protest the shutdown. Besides the unacceptable short length of this article, I'm not seeing many crying over this loss here, so it would only make sense to post if the operators are convicted in court. Masem (t) 12:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: And the article doesn't even say what was raided, by which police, in order to shut the thing down. This is absolutely not ready for ITN. I'm not convinced it's ready for WP. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close This is not notable per NATG19 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:F965:A052:8324:6519 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 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.

(Closed) Ben Roberts-Smith

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Curbon7 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 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
Ben Roberts-Smith speaking at the 2015 National Flag Raising and Citizenship Ceremony
Article: Ben Roberts-Smith (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The High Court of Australia rejects Ben Roberts-Smith's final bid to overturn a civil judgement which found that he had committed murder and other war crimes while deployed to Afghanistan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The High Court of Australia rejects Ben Roberts-Smith's final bid to overturn a civil judgement which found that he had committed war crimes.
News source(s): ABC News (Australia) The Sydney Morning Herald BBC UK AP News Ottumwa Courier Killeen Daily Herald Seattle Times Capital Brief
Credits:
Nominator's comments: The allegations of war crimes and the resulting defamation action (labbeled the trial of the century by Australian media) brought by Roberts-Smith has had international coverage. The refusal by the high court, to hear the appeal, brings Roberts-Smith's avenues for appeal to an end. TarnishedPathtalk 14:08, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose domestic affair, lack of general importance and interest for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:11, 6 September 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.

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=1310691451"