Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps[edit]
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
[edit]Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives
Sections
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
October 14
[edit]
October 14, 2025
(Tuesday)
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
Blurb: Microsoft ends support for Windows 10 a decade after its release, despite 41% of Windows users still running the system. . (Post)
News source(s): Microsoft CNET
Credits:
- Nominated by Koltinn (talk · give credit)
Koltinn (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
October 13
[edit]
October 13, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Miss Major Griffin-Gracy
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.advocate.com/news/miss-major-griffin-gracy-obituary
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American LGBTQ activist. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is well referenced. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Sandy Alomar Sr.
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.elnuevodia.com/deportes/beisbol/notas/fallece-santos-alomar-pilar-del-beisbol-puertorriqueno-y-patriarca-de-una-dinastia-deportiva/
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Puerto Rican baseball player. Article needs some work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) New Gaza ceasefire blurb
[edit]![]() | The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Blurb: Hamas releases hostages and Israel (Hostages Square pictured) releases prisoners and withdraws to a ceasefire line as part of a Gaza peace plan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Hamas and Israel start implementing phase one of the Gaza peace plan by commencing a ceasefire then releasing hostages and prisoners. (Hostages Square pictured)
Alternative blurb II: Hamas and Israel start implementing the Gaza peace plan by commencing a ceasefire and releasing all living Israeli hostages.
Alternative blurb III: Hamas and Israel commence ceasefire and release hostages and prisoners as part of the Gaza peace plan.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Chaotic Enby (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Adding this as an alternative to the "Ongoing" suggestion below. The previous blurb was pulled due to errors, and, as it is nearly stale and was rescheduled to be posted today, it is better to have a fresh discussion on it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support clearly in the news. Do not understand the rationale for pulling, as that implies that there is something wrong with the article or the topic is not newsworthy. I see nothing wrong with this proposed blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb was pulled because it talked of a hostage exchange and, at that time, only Hamas had released some hostages. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I generally disagree with pulls altogether. I saw nothing wrong with that initial blurb, and I feel that on the fly tweaks to blurbs are better than pulls. Natg 19 (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb. We should revisit the ongoing stuff once it's officially done and we know more. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 15:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt As there is no need to reinforce the "Israelis are hostages/Palestinians are prisoners" asymmetry. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support ArionStar (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Needs work Per Gaza_peace_plan#Phase_one_actions the chronology seems to be that Israel withdrew first and then Hamas made the next move by releasing some hostages and then Israel started releasing prisoners. Other things are also happening today -- aid convoys, Trump talks and summit and whatever else. We should try to present the big picture as events seem to be moving quite quickly. This is phase one of a big plan and so this context should be clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Not sure what you are asking for. This is the big picture - prisoner/hostage swaps and the implementation of the peace plan. All those things you mention (aid convoys, Trump talks, summits) are details OF the big picture of the overall ceasefire. Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- You can propose another altblurb if you want something different. Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I wasn't content with the first blurb and so created an alt. I'm also concerned that we get things like the chronology and the day's events right. A peace deal document was signed today in Sharm el-Sheikh but its contents haven't been revealed yet, according to the NYT. The target article doesn't say enough about this. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the section on Trump and Nobel Peace Prize is very much out of place on the article. There is an "opinion" section that it would be better covered but I also feel it's coatracking here and likely better covered on a different Trump related page. Masem (t) 15:58, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're going to be hearing a lot more about Trump's part in this as the latest news is that "Leaders gather around Donald Trump in Sharm El-Sheikh for Middle East peace summit". The article hasn't caught up with that as it currently just has "An international summit on the next phase of the peace plan will be convened on 13 October in Sharm el Shaikh, Egypt." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not saying acknowledging trumps role in the article is a problem, but this section is very much out of place as it's trying to ascribe motive, even if multiple RSes say ththis us what it is. Where included, it's a coat rack, but it can be included elsewhere without that. Masem (t) 17:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you'd like to see the article improved, Talk:Gaza peace plan is the correct venue. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a quality issue that affects its postability here. Masem (t) 17:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- ITN is also a valid place to raise quality issues as they directly affect the nom posting. Gotitbro (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- If you'd like to see the article improved, Talk:Gaza peace plan is the correct venue. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not saying acknowledging trumps role in the article is a problem, but this section is very much out of place as it's trying to ascribe motive, even if multiple RSes say ththis us what it is. Where included, it's a coat rack, but it can be included elsewhere without that. Masem (t) 17:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're going to be hearing a lot more about Trump's part in this as the latest news is that "Leaders gather around Donald Trump in Sharm El-Sheikh for Middle East peace summit". The article hasn't caught up with that as it currently just has "An international summit on the next phase of the peace plan will be convened on 13 October in Sharm el Shaikh, Egypt." Andrew🐉(talk) 16:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb2 – The context that the two-year hostage crisis has ended is widely covered. Removed "phase one" to keep the blurb concise. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support with preference for ALT2. This is clearly in the news and does look to actually be happening (at least for now), thus is worth posting. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt1 in principle, we've reached an appropriate point for a blurb. However I'm still uncomfortable with the target article, which doesn't adequately distinguish between Trump's proposals and what has actually been agreed between Israel & Hamas. They're related but different things - those topics should be in two separate articles. There's no guarantee that any of the later phases are going to happen. Also, alt2 is unbalanced by only mentioning the Israeli hostages not the Palestinians who were also released. Modest Genius talk 17:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 per above. The Kip (contribs) 19:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think ceasefire will likely not happen like the previous one failed. --QalasQalas (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @QalasQalas
I don't think ceasefire will likely not happen
- Please clarify; are you saying you think the ceasefire will happen (
don't... not
), or that it likely won't (likely not happen
)? The Kip (contribs) 20:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)- I was looking for waiting, but it was posted, so it probably won't happen. QalasQalas (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- @QalasQalas
Support ALT1, as alt2 strikes me as problematic. It is not appropriate as it only mentions the release of the Israeli abductees and not the Palestinian abductees: a key term of the ceasefire agreement is that Israel is also releasing prisoners/hostages, including children taken by the IDF from Gaza. The original blurb is slightly better in this regard, but I agree with users above that we should avoid reinforcing the "hostages/prisoners" asymmetry. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 21:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb3 I now prefer Alt3 per Basetornado. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support/Altblurb3 Added altblurb 3. Other altblurbs felt overly wordy and clunky in my view. Either way, feel this should be posted fairly soon. Admin just needs to pick something and go with it. Basetornado (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Though I agree with this, a previous posting was pulled so admins needed to be more careful. Natg 19 (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Posted. El_C 02:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please, add the image. ArionStar (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's currently listed for deletion (link). El_C 03:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is File:Gaza Strip territorial control 10 October 2025.png the same withdrawal line as the one that went into effect? If that is the case, it could be a good alternative. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- The source for that image is the WhiteHouse account on X. That often uses AI-generated images and it's not clear what the provenance of this one is. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is File:Gaza Strip territorial control 10 October 2025.png the same withdrawal line as the one that went into effect? If that is the case, it could be a good alternative. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's currently listed for deletion (link). El_C 03:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please, add the image. ArionStar (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Nobel Prize in Economics
[edit]Blurb: Joel Mokyr (pictured), Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt are jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. (Post)
News source(s): Nobel Committee, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by 193.183.210.238 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
One or both nominated events are 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: No article on this year's award yet. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: As usual give it at least 48 hours to see if the cleaning crew comes in. So far the articles are in very bad shape.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality one article is orange tagged, the other one is too short to meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready unfortunately. Mokyr and Aghion are orange-tagged for lack of references, and Howitt is barely more than a stub. They all need work. Modest Genius talk 17:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Can we get a brief description of why they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics? --The Vital One (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is tricky because the prize is split in two with two different reasons, half for Mokyr and half for the other two.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Update Gaza war in Ongoing with peace plan
[edit]![]() | The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: A blurb for the Gaza peace plan was posted but then pulled as it was inaccurate. There's now a chaotic discussion at WP:ERRORS as events are proceeding apace and the major news media are reporting them as live breaking news. This seems too ongoing to be suitable for a stable blurb and that's what Ongoing is for. I therefore suggest that the peace plan be added to the current ongoing entry for Gaza war which currently reads "Gaza war (timeline · genocide)
". The peace plan should probably replace the genocide entry as the famine/violence is abating and so genocide is not so apparent. The ongoing entry would then read "Gaza war (timeline · peace plan)
". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support – 5225C (talk • contributions) 11:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- What is this "contentious topic" box for? Since when have we started using that at ITN/C for nominations? Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 11:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- These ITNCs on contentious topcis have drawn editors that are not supposed to be commenting on them per ARBCOM. Masem (t) 11:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, as the peace plan should be its own blurb on being that significant, and it doesn't make sense to then have as ongoing, the main Gaza conflict should reflect that we should be in the cease fire period. That someone rushed to post it without getting agreement on what language the blurb should say is an issue we can fix. Masem (t) 11:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Also far too early to call the genocide over. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really a topic of separate ongoing significance beyond the war and ongoing isn't a redressal mechanism to rectify blurb errors. If the war is ultimately veritably over later, the proposal should be for a removal not to tack more to the ongoing section. And let us be straight here this is no more an effort to feature an ongoing item than remove an extant one (genocide), Andrew who was opposed to the nom for that should go for a removal, if the belief is that it is certainly "over" (no RS says that), rather than meandering about to try and remove it. Gotitbro (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, this should be a separate blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. This is an evolving situation - the original plan was conceived several days ago and is already almost stale, while today there are prisoner/hostage exchanges happening and other developments. And more things are likely to happen in the coming days and weeks. So there isn't really a single catch-all blurb for this, and I think in the mould of the recent way of doing things, e.g. adding the Gaza genocide as a single ongoing item rather than attempting to highlight one or other aspect of it, is the way to go. I would oppose making a standalone blurb of this. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Just to add, I don't support removing the "genocide" item, I missed that part of the nom. The new ongoing line should read "
Gaza war (timeline · genocide · peace plan)
". Some might regard this as overkill, but this is really a very major story, and sometimes we have things more prominently placed, e.g. the COVID-19 box back when that was in the news. — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Just to add, I don't support removing the "genocide" item, I missed that part of the nom. The new ongoing line should read "
- Support for a blurb. Come back to this once it's done. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 13:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing this should be a simple blurb. Additionally, ongoings can get buried and are less visible. Natg 19 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Prefer blurb. While the peace process is far from complete, I think it's better as a blurb for now, rather than an ongoing entry. The latter is worth considering when the blurb rotated off; re-nominate then. Modest Genius talk 17:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, I oppose removing the genocide link. Modest Genius talk 18:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose deleting the genocide mention as the nom suggests. This can be a blurb, this shouldn't affect ongoing. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I just don't understand why we're having this conversation now when we can have it later once it rolls off the main page. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - the current ongoing isn't broken, and with Hamas violating the peace plan, it seems unlikely that the violence won't continue, and will continue to features in the news. More deaths today. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Tipping points in the climate system
[edit]Blurb: Scientists at the University of Exeter report large-scale die-off of coral reefs, the first major tipping point in the climate system. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/13/coral-reefs-ice-sheets-amazon-rainforest-tipping-point-global-heating-scientists-report https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03316-w
Credits:
- Nominated by Oscarkkta420swag (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: This is major climate news Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
October 12
[edit]
October 12, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Saleh al-Jafarawi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Mohammed Qays (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Palestinian journalist killed during the ceasefire. Article looks good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: after Gaza cease fire still conflict in Gaza.--QalasQalas (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Benjamin Bathurst (Royal Navy officer)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gibraltar Chronicle
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dormskirk (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Royal Navy officer. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose: Birthday is uncited. Everything else is well written and sourced. --The Robot Parade (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Birthday is now cited. Dormskirk (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
October 2025 Mexico floods and landslides
[edit]Blurb: Flooding and landslides in Mexico leave at least 64 people dead and 65 others missing. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press New York Times The Weather Channel
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Unusual floods. ArionStar (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support on notability; higher death toll than Hurricane Otis, which also struck Mexico, when that was posted October 2023 (link to discussion - note that I'm referring to the known death toll when Otis was posted), and ongoing, so said toll may rise. To my knowledge, Mexico doesn't see floods of this scale nearly as often as may be suggested for other countries struck by disasters. Strong oppose on quality; the article is short and lacks both mechanism and finer detail to be expected from a front-page article. Departure– (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Also, worth noting that per Reuters update 3 hours ago, the death toll is now at least 44. Departure– (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The article is currently in a pitiful state. Almost bad enough to move it to draft space. Schwede66 00:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability,
oppose on qualityDeath toll certainly makes this notable beyond local and national levels, but the article itself is a low-quality stub that shouldn't be posted in the state it is now.Article has been improved, and now its good enough to be posted. NeoGaze (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC) - Wait for full impact and article quality. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Info Article is good now. ArionStar (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The article has hardly improved since I cast my !vote, and the changes aren't enough for me to change mine on quality. Departure– (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I feel the article, in it's current state, is still rather short and isn't on par in terms on quality compared to what's usually posted. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Significant death toll and adequately sources article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support you hate to see it, but it's notable. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 03:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is in better shape than when I saw it yesterday. Appears ready to go. Masem (t) 12:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on quality article still is very thin. Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Still quite thin and non-specific (where in Hidalgo? where in Veracruz?). Moscow Mule (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Situation by state" = they are states of Maxico. ArionStar (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Did you misread my comment as "where is Veracruz"? No: I want more specific details. References to Álamo and Poza Rica, and the names of the rivers there that burst their banks. The people getting rescued by boat in Platón Sánchez, just up the -- blocked, at least yesterday, near Chalma -- highway from Huejutla, Hgo., where another river flooded the city centre. Alarmingly, students at the UV in the north of the state claiming 190+ of their classmates are unaccounted for. Etc. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm try to find some national news (it's easier when it happens in the country where you live)… ArionStar (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Did you misread my comment as "where is Veracruz"? No: I want more specific details. References to Álamo and Poza Rica, and the names of the rivers there that burst their banks. The people getting rescued by boat in Platón Sánchez, just up the -- blocked, at least yesterday, near Chalma -- highway from Huejutla, Hgo., where another river flooded the city centre. Alarmingly, students at the UV in the north of the state claiming 190+ of their classmates are unaccounted for. Etc. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Situation by state" = they are states of Maxico. ArionStar (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. There are few dates referred to in the article. The lede is a single-run on sentence. "Attributed to remnants of storms" -- what else would rain be attributed to? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Never heard of rainmaking? ArionStar (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Departure–, Natg 19, and Moscow Mule:
Improvements done. ArionStar (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support High death toll, worldwide coverage and the article has now been updated. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Seychelles election
[edit]Blurb: Opposition leader Patrick Herminie wins the run-off in the election for president of Seychelles. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Patrick Herminie (pictured) is elected president of the Seychelles.
News source(s): Ajz
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.
2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: It might be a bit misleading to call him the "opposition leader", considering his party was the ruling party from 1979 to 2020 (and was only out of power for the last five years). --Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Fixed.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)- Still the opposition leader. Not really necessary, but it's not misleading. Basetornado (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to tweak with the original. I read what you said, but not arguing about minutiae.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Was replying to @Grnrchst saying it was misleading. In addition, no need to let me know if you making minor grammatical changes to blurbs, as you did below. Changing small things like that is perfectly fine to do. Basetornado (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to tweak with the original. I read what you said, but not arguing about minutiae.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Altblurb Added altblurb, run-off creates unneccessary confusion. Elected is clearer. Basetornado (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- added "is" to your blurb for grammar.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support The kerfuffle over the next prez comes to an end. Some may consider it to be a bit short but it passes bare ITN requirements. Gotitbro (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready two instances of uncited claims. Once fixed, I support altblurb for being concise.
- 193.183.210.238 (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Patrick Herminie's page needs more work to be fully sourced, while the election page just needs citations for the withdrawn candidates. Support when ready. --The Robot Parade (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please note that we evaluate the bolded articles only. Schwede66 01:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Support so long as President is head of state of Seychelles. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 03:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as too short. There isn't enough information about the election e.g. the conduct section says when essential workers voted in the first round but not everyone else. And nothing like a reactions to explain the outcome of the election. If fixed, then ALT1 should be used. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
2025 Madagascar coup
[edit]Blurb: In Madagascar, following protests, CAPSAT, a faction of the Armed Forces, claim control of the defense forces. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The President of Madagascar, Andry Rajoelina, flees the country following mass protests and a military mutiny.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Nominator's comments: It is still early, but a RS source has indicated this, so something to look out for. Possibly need a new article.
Also, if true then the removal of the prez would become ITNR. 2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- update Antantanarivo airport has aleady put up a notice of disruption.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait. It's absolutely too early to be posting this right now, there's still very little information on what is happening. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Can at least. have a section or spinoff on the attempt.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/comment Wait to see what happens over the next few days. Worth posting with article about the coup such as 2025 Malagasy coup d'etat etc, if the coup succeeds. Basetornado (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support, an attempted coup of this magnitude is newsworthy even if it doesn't succeed. With the ongoing context, I wouldn't be surprised if it was characterized as a coupvolution. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The coup article is too stubby for ITNR. Perhaps we can feature/hook the protest article itself which we haven't done so till now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait per Grnchst. The article also far from being ready in terms of length. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait as the coup/the situation seems to be ongoing. If President is removed, or coup is quashed, this will probably merit posting, but too early either way. Khuft (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait per above as it's still a very volatile situation. Article is also not ready. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/Support Regardless of if it is successful it should be posted however we should wait for the outcome if it comes in a timely manner Otto (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Even if the coup failed, the event is newsworthy. The article has also been improved in the last hours. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 03:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Update The president has fled the country on a French military aircraft. (The Guardian). It'd be worth writing a new blurb and discussing that. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Added an alternative blurb with update. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb The president fleeing the country is certainly a notable development, and I think the sourcing is adequate. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support alt1, though the bold link should be on the mutiny article, not the president's. Only weak support because that article is still quite short and lacking in details. The event itself is important enough to blurb. Modest Genius talk 17:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment, leaning wait There seems to be an unofficial confirmation about Rajoelina actually leaving the country and he's scheduled to address the nation later today. Maybe in his address we'll get confirmation if he'll resign/actually fled the country/will remain defiant and stay in office, etc. Worth waiting to see what unravels after his address before posting. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Andry Rajoelina indeed gave an address a few hours ago in which he confirmed that he had been forced to move to a secure location (without being more specific). He "appeared defiant" and did not announce that he would resign. [1] 98.170.164.88 (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- New nomination? It seems like Rajoelina has fled the country - maybe, for clarity's sake, it would make sense to close this nomination and open a new one (maybe under ITN/R)? Khuft (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
October 11
[edit]
October 11, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
Sports
Politics and elections
|
RD: Tony Fitzpatrick
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by KConWiki (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Chicago artist and media personality KConWiki (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jesse L. Douglas
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American civil rights activist. Key figure in the Selma to Montgomery marches. He died in 2021 but his death was not reported until now. Thriley (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose There’s only 2 sentences about the guy Elisecars727 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I've went ahead and essentially created the page. This should have been posted after the page was expanded. Should be sufficient for RD. --The Robot Parade (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- May I point out that the prose does not mention that he's dead? There's no reference for the death date or place either. Schwede66 00:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
RD/Blurb: Diane Keaton
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: American actress Diane Keaton (pictured) dies at the age of 79 (Post)
News source(s): People Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit), Livelikemusic (talk · give credit), Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit) and Alexcalamaro (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning American actress known for Annie Hall and The Godfather. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support - well, my day is ruined. One of the greats. Article looks good. estar8806 (talk) ★ 19:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Estar8806, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - regrettably, An amazing actress who will be sorely missed but I don't think she was as influential or iconic as Robert Redford or Maggie Smith. estar8806 (talk) ★ 00:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Estar8806, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb. Oscar winner, had three films winning Oscar for Best Picture, had contributed to cinema much, household name. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, neutral on blurb Not sure if blurb worthy actress (will have to do more research into that), but most certainly RD worthy. Article is good enough to meet requirements. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality bad news! But, once again, I feel I must say that we should not make the usual mistake of posting quickly in response to breaking news and and appreciation for the actress without properly assessing the quality of the article: many lines are unsourced. Oppose blurb on notability we can't just post every amard-winning and popular American actress/actor without fully securing the impact of their career on the history of cinema. I don't think this is the case. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- There is a section Acting style and Legacy showcasing her impact. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- No blurb ffs. Being more famous than other notable people should not get you a blurb. The death is not the story, nor was she "transformative". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, in a way, it does. We can showcase what people care about and are interested in. There’s nothing wrong with that. After all, it’s all about engagement. Would you prefer if we show people who no one cares or knows about? Cinaroot (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- No on blurb. One of the biggest actresses of her day, and despite her age, death was unexpected. However, her influence in cinema is nowhere close to Robert Redford. RD is fine. 139.138.10.143 (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- They both had three films winning Best Picture. I can't say it is nowhere close. Some might say is bigger, some may say that not, but not "nowhere close". After all, she was in Godfather, one of the most famous of films all-time. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- The reason why Redford was Blurb’ed was because he left a larger legacy overall when you include his conservation history, and more importantly, his contribution to supporting independent film. Keaton was huge, but her legacy is mostly as a beloved actress and fashion icon. I don’t see any legacy on how she impacted filmmaking and the art of acting as a whole. 139.138.10.143 (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- They both had three films winning Best Picture. I can't say it is nowhere close. Some might say is bigger, some may say that not, but not "nowhere close". After all, she was in Godfather, one of the most famous of films all-time. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, leaning support blurb. A piece in Far Out asked earlier this year, "Is Diane Keaton the most influential actor in modern Hollywood?", noting the tremendous lineage of later actresses (and actors) influenced by her acting style. BD2412 T 19:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb I reasoned in the Redford nom that while posting borderline cases like it may appear alright in silo when considered in toto floodgates of blurb noms nowhere reaching RD criteria may very well opened. This is the case here, the article is fine for an RD but a case for a blurb either from the cause of the death or career can hardly be made (beyond non-transformative influence in the field of work). Gotitbro (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Blurb Unfortunate news. Era-defining legend. Suggestions that a burb would only be justified due to the cause of death are pure sophistry. Users visiting the Wikipedia homepage today and in the coming days will value this blurb. Dr Fell (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- No one has suggested that death as story is the sole criteria, it is one of them nonetheless, but that this doesn't meet other ITN criteria which you should read upon. And I would suggest you WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH ("sophistry" et al). Gotitbro (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb : Really sad news Cinaroot (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Cinaroot, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 RD Cinaroot (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 that page has 3 million views on day of her death. i think blurb is also appropriate. Cinaroot (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Robert Redford got less hits than her. Cinaroot (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't care one bit about it. All I want to be able to do is see where the consensus falls. Schwede66 01:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 that page has 3 million views on day of her death. i think blurb is also appropriate. Cinaroot (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 RD Cinaroot (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Cinaroot, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb RIP Diane Keaton, but to me she doesn't rise to the levels of era-defining actors/actresses that would merit a blurb. We didn't blurb Claudia Cardinale either, even though in Europe the latter is probably much better known. Khuft (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Waaaaaay too much unsupported text to even consider posting. When/if it gets to postable condition, oppose blurb: RD only: not transformative, doesn’t meet threshold for a blirb. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb on notabilityBecause last time I checked, it’s called the “in the news” section, not the “transformative events” section. We regularly post mass shootings, transportation accidents, and sports events that are in no way radical or transformative. And on the other hand, there is news about transformative domestic political issues that impact thousands of people, but we don’t post those because despite being transformative, the global RS are not covering it. We post blurbs if reliable sources across the globe are talking about them. The same principle applies here - it’s really that simple. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 21:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- There's a whole section of the ITN Box called Recent Deaths to feature people that have recently died. So they are indeed featured as "In the News". Khuft (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This forum is extraordinarily ill-suited to determine if a figure is "transformative" enough for a blurb. The correct heuristic is very close to what you've said: "We post blurbs if reliable sources [...] are talking about them." Reliable sources are talking about them because they better understand where the attention and interest of their readers and viewers are. Diane Keaton is obviously blurbworthy. Dr Fell (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- ITN is not a monolith and we have different criteria for different types of stories. Sports and the rest are mostly ITNR items and transformative as such really only applies to deaths (where death is not the story, whence that item would be considered on that merit and not for the bio as a whole) ever since RDs were introduced. Global coverage is also not a criteria but ITN siginificance is. Gotitbro (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Then Maggie Smith and Robert Redford shouldn't have been blurped too Varoon2542 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Article is currently not ready due to very insufficient sourcing and I wish more people would wait with support !votes rather than blindly adding supports based on condolences or other reasons without considering the article quality being there first per WP:ITNQUALITY. I am currently undecided on blurb. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. Is she A household name? Yes. Is she head and shoulders above others in the same field, in a Thatcher / Mandela kind of way? Not really. She won an Oscar, that is impressive, but not a superlative achievement. At least four actors win one every year. — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb / Support RD - While a well-known actress, not transformative in her profession to support a blurb. There is a reason why a Recent Deaths section exists. 2601:882:4080:1A0:1886:E6DF:17C4:579E (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD due the usual quality problems, and this has a ways to go until its ready. Assuming quality is fixed, Oppose blurb as while there is an Acting Style and Legacy, there's very little description here of how she would be considered a major figure within Hollywood. Big name, but not really one that has had an influence on the field. Masem (t) 22:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose blurb While there’s a legacy section (which is a step In the right direction), it doesn’t seem to establish her as a transformative actress. Redford was a transformative actor and an influential environmentalist both highlighted in his legacy section. I can’t seem to see how her legacy section establishes Keaton as a transformative actress during her time or in cinema history. Maybe the legacy section is lacking but for me personally I can’t seem to see her being a transformative influential actress. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Lean oppose blurb Keaton was a good actress with a long career. I'm leaning towards RD only though, because we shouldn't be blurbing EVERY famous American public figure (actors, athletes, etc...) who dies (ITN is already Amero-centric enough as it is) Canuck89 (Converse with me) or visit my user page 23:15, October 11, 2025 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD and blurb CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 01:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- A simple "support" without any reasoning is unhelpful, see WP:ITNCDONT and please elaborate yourself. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose RD,Oppose Blurb: Article quality is insufficient for RD. Filmography is seemingly completely unsourced and some paragraphs go totally uncited as well. We have to hold every article to the same standards even if we like the subjects more. Additionally, I oppose the blurb based on notability. Half of the American actors on Wikipedia have "legacy" sections, this does not mean they are so transformative as to have a blurb dedicated to their passing. Phenomenal actress and a tragic loss. but RD is good enough once her article is up to snuff. --The Robot Parade (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)- Given the new updates, article sourcing is sufficient enough that I now support RD. --The Robot Parade (talk) 13:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb - As iconic as it gets. Quibbles about sourcing or notability fail to convince. Just post it. Jusdafax (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sourcing is not something we can wave away because it is a featured link on the main page. Its a BLP, its sourcing is supposed to be near perfect, and there's far too many gaps for this to even be close to posting. Masem (t) 02:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Quibbles when RD is to be foregone is exactly what RD blurb noms are for. We either apply those blurb standards for all BLPs or we don't. Gotitbro (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- She’s an icon’s icon. In 18 years here, I don’t believe I’ve ever invoked this, but I do so now: WP:IAR. Changing to Strong Support Blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:IAR should be seen as a complement to WP:BOLD, it does not apply as an excuse to post unfinished articles the Main Page. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- She’s an icon’s icon. In 18 years here, I don’t believe I’ve ever invoked this, but I do so now: WP:IAR. Changing to Strong Support Blurb. Jusdafax (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The sourcing issue is not a mere "quibble", see WP:ITNQUALITY. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb Great actor, blurb isn't really necessary. Not every actor needs to be blurbed. Basetornado (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- She’s wasn’t just any actress. Suggest you read or reread her Legacy section. Jusdafax (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Plenty of actors have legacy sections. She was more well known than average. But not that much. Basetornado (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Plenty of actors and actresses have won Oscars. But only 50 have received a highly notable and prestigious AFI Life Achievement Award, and only 11 of those were women. She broke the mold with Annie Hall at a time when women were looking for honesty and originality. And she kept on going. Jusdafax (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Great, you're not changing my mind. I still don't believe it needs to be blurbed. Basetornado (talk) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Plenty of actors and actresses have won Oscars. But only 50 have received a highly notable and prestigious AFI Life Achievement Award, and only 11 of those were women. She broke the mold with Annie Hall at a time when women were looking for honesty and originality. And she kept on going. Jusdafax (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Plenty of actors have legacy sections. She was more well known than average. But not that much. Basetornado (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not front page on any major news site. Not a serving political head. OLDMANDIES, death not notable as event This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- There should be OLDWOMANDIES... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Though a serving political head OLDMANDIES would be ITNR and not a death blurb, due to succession in almost all cases. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ideally none of them would be! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- She’s wasn’t just any actress. Suggest you read or reread her Legacy section. Jusdafax (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Great actress for sure but not transformative and influential enough for a blurb. Moreover, given the nature of the film industry and the exposure of wide audiences to it, it’s normal for a film actress to be more widely known than people in many other fields (the same can be said of people from the music industry and sportspeople), so this isn’t a very compelling argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - Just would like ya'll to know that i did not write "Oscar-winning American actress known for Annie Hall and The Godfather." as the comment. Someone else decided to edit the initial description that was simply "American actress.", though it's more descriptive so I'm not complaining. Onegreatjoke (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb: I do know a bit of her and she's my part of my childhood memories. Also, She's have coverage from Reuters, BBC, and The Guardian. ROY is WAR Talk! 07:23, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I have placed a Talk page notification of this discussion at WP:Film. Jusdafax (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this just encourage brigading? Feels like a clear conflict of interest issue given your very pro-stance for a blurb. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- That would appear to be the case, as it is ITN hasn't really had an answer to fandom deluge. Gotitbro (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this just encourage brigading? Feels like a clear conflict of interest issue given your very pro-stance for a blurb. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The message that Jusdafax left on the Film project is neutral and does not appear to be biased, so it is not WP:canvassing. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The issue is not with canvassing, which itself can be valid when properly done, but whether selectively notifying one noticeboard (FILM in this case) which would clearly be more interested in seeing this featured is a legitimate form of it. A proper canvassing would for e.g. also seek opinion from boards such as BLP, entertainment, US, current affairs etc. Gotitbro (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The message that Jusdafax left on the Film project is neutral and does not appear to be biased, so it is not WP:canvassing. Natg 19 (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Onegreatjoke, estar8806}, BilboBeggins, BD2412, Jusdafax. Important actress. WP:RS Diane Keaton: Artist and Icon, [2], [3], Dissertation on her, Dissertation #2 from Google Scholar search --David Tornheim (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Information is adequate Kampolama (talk) 12:40 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The article still has major sourcing issues. I strongly disagree about it being 'adequate'. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Kampolama, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support blurb One of the most recognizable faces in Hollywood. ArionStar (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- recognizable≠notable _-_Alsor (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per BD2412 and Jusdafax and "It was an abortion; an abortion, like our marriage is an abortion". —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support Of course she is notable enough. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Knowledge Pirate, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry. She is notable for Recent Deaths only. I am undecided on a blurb. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Knowledge Pirate, please note that for RD, the only criterion that we look for is whether the page is up to scratch. Notability is already confirmed by the person having a Wiki bio. Schwede66 01:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry. This is my first time participating here. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- All good. I pointed this out just so you know. No harm done. Schwede66 04:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry. This is my first time participating here. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Knowledge Pirate, please note that for RD, the only criterion that we look for is whether the page is up to scratch. Notability is already confirmed by the person having a Wiki bio. Schwede66 01:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry. She is notable for Recent Deaths only. I am undecided on a blurb. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Knowledge Pirate, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment To those that don't usually participate in ITN, the basis for death blurbs should be based on whether the person was a major, transformative or influential figure in their field, as documented by sources in the article, not by claims made by editors. Calling out to her fame or being a household name does not help as that's a bias that we try to work against for popular Western celebrities. Further, the article is still a far far ways from being ready for any type of posting and that needs to be the focus first and foremost. Masem (t) 21:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- How transformative were past actors whose deaths were blurped ? Varoon2542 (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD while I respect the opposition here, I think these long articles with lots of citations should be graded more on a percentage basis rather than striving for perfection. There are relatively few uncited controversial statements at this point. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb, support RD Good article quality, but oppose per Masem's statement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I can also see that the 2025 Tennessee manufacturing plant explosion has been posted, too. I'm not sure if it is ideal to have two blurbs about the United States at the same time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Stephen 01:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I can also see that the 2025 Tennessee manufacturing plant explosion has been posted, too. I'm not sure if it is ideal to have two blurbs about the United States at the same time. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Admin comment Now that a few editors have clarified their ambiguous feedback, the ratio between oppose and support for a blurb is 2:1. Assuming that this won't change, I suggest that those who would like to see this on the main page should put their efforts into tidying up the article. When done, we'll post it to recent deaths. Schwede66 04:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Added citations, article should be good to go now. ItsShandog (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose Blurb - I appreciate people's enthusiasm, but I don't personally feel the bar is met for a blurb in this case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Suppored RD, Oppose Blurb - There's way too much "American celeb has died" headlines. It's getting out of hand and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD --QalasQalas (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Quality is like 99% there for RD posting. There are a few tags in prose, and the first paragraph of the Awards is unsourced. A few of the films are also unsourced (but everything else is), so if those last few bits in the prose can be fixed, this should be RD ready. Masem (t) 12:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve added several new citations across the article, including the awards section and other areas. However, some entries in the acting credits remain unsourced, and I haven’t been able to locate reliable references for them. ItsShandog (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Blurb The notability issue is a non-issue. She represented the 1970s, was the cornerstone of the Woody Allen films era, was the quintessential WASP. She actually had a career spanning decades and is a recognisable face across the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- To whom did she represent the 1970s? And why should her being "the quintessential WASP" and "the cornerstone of the Woody Allen films era" make her blurb-worthy? I don't doubt your good faith at all but I think there is a habit on ITN of people making assertions like this but not qualifying them. In my opinion, we need more concrete proof of her impact and importance, especially globally. Humbledaisy (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, neutral on blurb. The article is in a strong state. The only two citation needed tags are for special thanks on Ellie Parker in the filmography—which she wasn’t in—and one piece she presumably narrated, both so tiny I wouldn’t object to their removal from the page. Otherwise the usual quality issues are resolved. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb on the basis that her article doesn't demonstrate how she was transformative and that there are just so many actors of her era that we will have to consider some day. When Robert Redford died, I made a long comment listing some of the many Hollywood stars whose deaths may be discussed here sooner rather than later. Keaton was one of the 46 A-listers I named, alongside the likes of nonagenarians Sophia Loren, Clint Eastwood, Shirley MacLaine and Julie Andrews, octogenarians Barbra Streisand, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Harrison Ford and Sylvester Stallone, and septuagenarians Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sigourney Weaver, Samuel L. Jackson and Meryl Streep. I wasn't suggesting we were going to blurb all 46 names I had, I just wanted to put in black-and-white the actual scale of what we're deciding when we blurb another Hollywood film actor. I know people here don't like it when someone brings up Americentrism but I see it here as I did with the Redford discussion; people will assert how iconic someone was, how recognisable they were, how they were a household name but nobody seems to question to whom they are recognisable, to whom they are iconic, to whom they were a household name. If the answer is always North Americans, then I think we ought to be more critical with our judgement for ITN. I'm not suggesting that only being famous in one country is a reason not to blurb someone - and DK certainly had a fair level of stardom outside of her home country (unlike, say, Alan Alda - we'll get to that in time) - but I don't think arguments that amount to "I know who they are and all my friends do too" are that strong.Humbledaisy (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Flavius Domide
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://iamsport.ro/fotbal/superliga/uta-arad-in-doliu-legendarul-flavius-domide-s-a-stins-din-viata-id40150.html
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Romanian footballer. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support meets WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article's quality is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Ian Watkins
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Standard
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former singer and child rapist. 48. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Multiple news stations reporting this. GeminiHeron (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment And that is a prison murder. I cannot tell from the article whether the notability of this individual stems from the profession or the crime (the article is a maze of these two), if the former is the case then that should be made apparent in the article itself (lede and all). PS: Fakescientist's sign combined with the nom statement didn't make for a pretty look :/. Gotitbro (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Career section needs more sourcing. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Ollieisanerd Sourcing should be cleaned up now. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to support per above. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Ollieisanerd Sourcing should be cleaned up now. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. No reason except that I have an aversion to posting child rapists on the Main Page. Call it IAR. Oh and good riddance. Black Kite (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Technically valid but let's just let him be forgotten, not something we need on the Main Page. CoconutOctopus talk 22:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support notability-wise. Precedence has been to post even the most noxious figures on RD. Take Robert Pickton, a notorious serial killer who was also posted to RD when he was killed in prison. The suggestions of damnatio memoriae are anathema to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored and similar policies. -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- @-insert valid name here- Entirely agree. If are to adhere to fictitious WP policies, why let the man have an article in the first place? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored but the Main Page is a curated list of topics that we consider important enough to be featured there. It is entirely reasonable to disregard such a posting and I wouldn't really consider that IAR.
- Though I personally see no problem with posting this, as long as the quality issues raised above are fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- He had an article well before his crimes came to light. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The principles of damnatio memoriae would indicate a purging of the person from the record, (i.e. deleting the page/salting) which, like this opposition, is based on nothing but fictitious policy and opinions. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Policy says we don't do that. It doesn't mean, however, that we have to stick his name on the Main Page. We have a choice whether to do that. Black Kite (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The principles of damnatio memoriae would indicate a purging of the person from the record, (i.e. deleting the page/salting) which, like this opposition, is based on nothing but fictitious policy and opinions. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @-insert valid name here- Entirely agree. If are to adhere to fictitious WP policies, why let the man have an article in the first place? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support... with some ick. I don't like the prospect of having him on the main page, but as insert valid name said we can't censor Wikipedia. Ian Watkins has died, and the article quality is sufficient. RD is primarily about news, and his death is news. (I'd support whatever the admins decide, however) --The Robot Parade (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Might I remind everyone that WP is not censored, and that RD isn't a morality test. It's "Recent deaths" not "recent deaths of people we morally approve of." The only qualification is that they have a WP article to begin with, and that they've died, and that the articles have no major issues. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Quality is okay. Setting aside that subjects which have their own articles are presumed notable for RD, there's a lot of articles posted to the main page about innocent people dying, it's a change of pace to link to an article about the death of a rat like this. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose R. Huckle and J. Saville get posted in RD nor nominated when they died. Koltinn (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support I respect the moral opposers, but infamy, like fame, does not affect notability. —Fortuna, imperatrix 18:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
C)
- Support and Ready. Support of course - as that's policy. Those who don't like the policy should take it to the appropriate forum - but I bet they won't. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support not massively different from having executed criminals on the front page, and at least he did something notable before his crimes. Secretlondon (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Until there is a rule that says paedophiles are banned from featuring, WP:ITNRD clearly says: "An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths (RD) section if it has a biographical Wikipedia article". I don't like this individual (and would back a similar rule in future) but we have to stick to policy on this nomination. And the article does meet the critera, is well written and not tagged. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Fortuna imperatrix. Jusdafax (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
October 10
[edit]
October 10, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Michael Pratt
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-13/michael-pratt-victorian-police-officer-george-cross-recipient/105883558
Credits:
- Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Australian police officer who received the George Cross for outstanding bravery in his efforts to thwart the armed robbery of a bank in 1976. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Accurate Energetic Systems explosion
[edit]Blurb: In the United States, an explosion at a manufacturing plant in Tennessee leaves 16 people dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An explosion at a manufacturing plant in Tennessee leaves 16 people dead.
Alternative blurb II: An explosion at a explosives factory in Tennessee kills at least 16 people.
Alternative blurb III: An explosion at an explosives manufacturing plant in Tennessee kills at least 16 people.
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now until the number of fatalities is confirmed, which must be high for it to be ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Remember there is no actual MINIMUMDEATHs, what we are trying to avoid are common disaster stories with relatively low death tolls. A building explosion is not common. Masem (t) 18:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot consider an explosion in a building with few fatalities to be noteworthy. Incidents of this kind are not that uncommon. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- 18 likely deaths is not “few” though? PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- This figure was not then confirmed. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- 18 likely deaths is not “few” though? PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot consider an explosion in a building with few fatalities to be noteworthy. Incidents of this kind are not that uncommon. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Remember there is no actual MINIMUMDEATHs, what we are trying to avoid are common disaster stories with relatively low death tolls. A building explosion is not common. Masem (t) 18:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Authorities find it likely that 16 are dead, which is significant in my eyes.
It may be ideal to wait for them to provide an exact death toll(they have 1brianm7 (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)) and I've also added altblurb1. 1brianm7 (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC) - Support. High number of fatalities in a rare manufacturing plant explosion in the United States. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support/Altburb2" Support on notability. Interesting because it's an explosives plant. Added altblurb 2, because "manufacturing plant" doesn't really describe what it was, or why it's interesting. It was an "Explosive's manufacturing plant" or "Explosives factory". Manufacturing plant, makes it sound like a random factory and a gas leak. Showing that it's an explosives factory to begin with tells the story better. Basetornado (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 01:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb 1. Tragic and still at the top of the news here in the US. Perhaps we could combine alt-1 and -2 to say "explosives manufacturing plant" or something to that effect. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Combining the two would work for me. Just feel that manufacturing plant alone doesn't really give needed context. Basetornado (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted ALT3. Schwede66 23:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
French Prime Minister
[edit]Blurb: Sébastien Lecornu (pictured) is reappointed as French prime minister by President Emmanuel Macron (Post)
News source(s): BBC, France24
Credits:
- Nominated by CREditzWiki (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 22:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This isn't in any meaningful sense a change in the head of government, and while it's in the news, I don't think it can reasonably be said to represent any great shift. And Lecornu's position is as precarious as ever. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah not sure what I was doing here. Should it be closed? There's probably much better stuff in the news rather than the French PM not being PM for a few days. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 22:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Not a change in head of government This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's a reappointment of the head of government and that's WP:ITN/R. Leaders often serve additional terms and we usually post this even though it's more of the same. Andrew🐉(talk)
- Except it isn't. When leaders serve additional terms, that's usually because there have been elections in-between, and it's those elections that make it ITNR.Khuft (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- You've got it backwards. We don't usually post such reappointments as the result of elections because we post the election instead, as ITN/R explains. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think we're saying exactly the same thing now. When a PM or President is re-elected, we post it under ITNR-Elections; when there's a new PM / President for whatever reason, we post that under ITNR-Change-of-Head-of-Gov. My point is that the current Lecornu case falls under neither. It's not a new PM, and there have been no elections in between his resignation and reappointment that would warrant posting under "XYZ returns as PM after winning the elections." Khuft (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- You've got it backwards. We don't usually post such reappointments as the result of elections because we post the election instead, as ITN/R explains. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is ITN/R and the unusual nature of the reappointment makes it all the more newsworthy. Another option is to put the 2024–2025 French political crisis in ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:ITN/R names
Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.
Here, List of current heads of state and government does mark Lecornu (and not Macron) in green, but the sourcing is very insufficient, as it only links an older source explaining the situation during cohabitation (which isn't currently the case). This doesn't seem to be accurate, and I am thus doubtful of the event being actually ITN/R. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)- The current situation is a form of cohabitation as the President's party doesn't control the National Assembly and so the PM has to form a coalition. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:ITN/R names
- Oppose A reappointment of the previous PM is basically no change in PM. Let's see how long he lasts this time - maybe more interesting French political news will merit posting soon. Khuft (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lecornu, since taking office, has at no point been since not been PM. This whole mess of no one sticking around as PM is obviously important, but this particular situation is a blip on the radar in a larger crisis. I've also untagged this as ITN/R because there was no change in who the PM was, this is basically Macron not accepting his resignation. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to think you know better than the sources. For example, the NYT reports, "President Emmanuel Macron of France reappointed Sébastien Lecornu as the country’s prime minister ... Lecornu ... had been tasked with forming a government, just days after his previous cabinet of centrists and conservatives imploded ... A new government formed by Mr. Lecornu would be France’s fourth in less than a year ... ". So, this is formally a new administration, albeit with the same chap as PM. Of course, it already looks shaky but that's why I suggest the crisis article as an alternative, as discussed below. The idea that we should just say "nothing to see here" seems absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- The cabinet in question was also in place for a matter of days, which begs the question of how this is functionally different than simply having had Lecornu not have formed a cabinet to begin with. I mean, genuinely, did anything ACTUALLY get done over those few days to really suggest otherwise? Like I said, this feels like me like just another flare-up in a much larger context of what I guess has to be called a "government crisis" in France. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's not unprecedented for there being different administrations with the same PM. We actually have a whole template for that: Template:Governments of the French Fifth Republic. Recently, there have been 2 Borne administrations, 2 Philippe administrations, 2 Valls administrations, 3 Fillon administrations, etc. These subsequent administrations weren't posted... and indeed we sometimes didn't even post new PMs (Bayrou wasn't posted I think). Khuft (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to think you know better than the sources. For example, the NYT reports, "President Emmanuel Macron of France reappointed Sébastien Lecornu as the country’s prime minister ... Lecornu ... had been tasked with forming a government, just days after his previous cabinet of centrists and conservatives imploded ... A new government formed by Mr. Lecornu would be France’s fourth in less than a year ... ". So, this is formally a new administration, albeit with the same chap as PM. Of course, it already looks shaky but that's why I suggest the crisis article as an alternative, as discussed below. The idea that we should just say "nothing to see here" seems absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Trivial drama in the larger crisis. The repeated PM appointments/removals are also getting tiring to the point that we need to ask whether even if there was a change in the PM (ITNR) would it warrant a posting. Of course this isn't even ITNR though, no election, no change but deinite political drama. Gotitbro (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- support. I can understand the sentiment of the votes above, but listing the reappointment of the prime minister is mandatory per the wording of ITN/R. France has a semi presidential system and the PM administers large parts of the executive. The new government probably won't last long, but it is certainly in the news anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- ITNR items are not "mandatory" to be posted, ITNR exists to avoid having to consider the notability and ITN-appropriateness of the recurring events there. Specific/individual ITNCs that extend from an ITNR can be determined on cases like this if they need to be posted. HEre, the near back-to-back events and effective no change in status quo is a good reason to not post this specific instance. Masem (t) 23:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support even if it's the same guy, it's an unexpected development and technically a new government. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - I thought this had been correctly closed. Why was it reopened? GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- On what basis would it have been "correctly closed"? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I also didn't see when that happened, but I understand it was because the nominator had withdrawn it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was closed very early on as the nominator tentatively suggested they might have erred, but there have since been support !votes. Also, it very clearly meets the definition of WP:ITN/R, which states "Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above" (emphasis mine). If this is not to be posted, then it needs to be clearly noted that it's for WP:IAR reasons, per Masem above, rather than because it's not ITN/R. Remarking with the ITN/R flag for now. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. WP:ITN/R is a guideline, not a rule, and it only documents existing consensus at ITN/C. The importance per-clearance applies only to the more powerful/prominent office in each country. While we have struggled to articulate that at ITN/R given all the quirks of the de jure/de facto splits and figureheads, the consensus is clear. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was closed very early on as the nominator tentatively suggested they might have erred, but there have since been support !votes. Also, it very clearly meets the definition of WP:ITN/R, which states "Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above" (emphasis mine). If this is not to be posted, then it needs to be clearly noted that it's for WP:IAR reasons, per Masem above, rather than because it's not ITN/R. Remarking with the ITN/R flag for now. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I also didn't see when that happened, but I understand it was because the nominator had withdrawn it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- On what basis would it have been "correctly closed"? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is opened again. I remember drafting something to have it closed and it didn't post because it ALREADY WAS CLOSED. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 18:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: John Lodge
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian The Independent
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English musician best known as the bass guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter for the Moody Blues. ItsShandog (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose with regret - Article has too much unsourced content. If, over the weekend, more obituaries are released which can verify the information, we can revisit it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The caveat is that sourcing existing uncited material with obituaries has a risk of WP:CITOGENESIS.—Bagumba (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Significant edits have been made to make this page appropriately cited, including cutting out much of the (unneeded) unsourced information. Should be good for recent deaths at this point. RIP to a legend and my father's favorite musician. --The Robot Parade (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The date of birth is unreferenced. The reference that is there gives a year only, but it's different from what the bio shows. Schwede66 23:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Didn't notice that discrepancy until now, added a clarifying footnote and additional citations. --The Robot Parade (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize
[edit]Blurb: María Corina Machado (pictured) of Venezuela is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: María Corina Machado (pictured) is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her pro-democracy activism in Venezuela.
News source(s): nobel, Al-jazeera
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.
Think it's the wee smalls over in the new world. Articl will get the reactins in a few hours.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:3908:CE13:CC6D:FFAF (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support added altblurb. Her article looks pretty good enough, _-_Alsor (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Her article looks good to go. 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 09:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above. --The Canadian Askew (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality and sourcing seem good. There was one claim with a [citation needed] tag, which I cited but which has since been removed entirely. No other tags or indications of significant problems that I can see. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support the article is looking fine.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: shouldn't the blurb also link specifically to this year's prize? (2025 Nobel Peace Prize as opposed to just Nobel Peace Prize) — Mignof (talk | contribs) 11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's unusual to have a specific article for each year's prize, which is probably why that was missed. I've added piped links to the proposed blurb (no change to their text). Modest Genius talk 11:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is not unusual for Nobel Peace Prizes because of the public announcements of nominations.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not really, I have seen great articles for the peace and literature prices for each year since 2010. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- It's unusual to have a specific article for each year's prize, which is probably why that was missed. I've added piped links to the proposed blurb (no change to their text). Modest Genius talk 11:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support original blurb. I'm pleased to see the article is in very good shape and has a detailed update. Looks good to go. I prefer the original blurb, because the altblurb only covers part of the reasons given by the Nobel committee. Modest Genius talk 11:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The simple summary that the Nobel committee has (before digging into the details) is "She is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela and for her struggle to achieve a just and peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy." I think the altblurb absolutely captures that sentiment, and helps the reader who (I bet, like me) isn't well aware of who she was. (But clear Support otherwise on quality and ITNR) Masem (t) 12:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt-blurb Original blurb is fine but doesn't explain the why in the Five Ws. I feel the article looks fine from a quick glance as there is no glaring issues. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support I am in support of this blurb. Kampolama (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Peruvian president Dina Boluarte removed
[edit]Blurb: President of Peru Dina Boluarte is removed by the Congress. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Congress of the Republic of Peru removes president Dina Boluarte from the office.
Alternative blurb II: José Jerí is sworn in as President of Peru after Dina Boluarte is removed by the Congress.
News source(s): CNN Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)
One or both nominated events are 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). 07:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support This might turn into ITNR if a successor is appointed in time. Gotitbro (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- It is now, with José Jerí's appointment, although his article is far from up to quality for posting. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, José Jerí's article is both too short and lacking in sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The the other altblurbs do not highlight him.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:3908:CE13:CC6D:FFAF (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Since that aspect is ITN/R, a blurb would necessarily have to mention his appointment. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The the other altblurbs do not highlight him.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:3908:CE13:CC6D:FFAF (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality orange tag and CNs on Jeri's article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on Article: The article Impeachment of Dina Boluarte should be nominated instead of the article, Dina Boluarte. Stunts1990 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait There is an article being made on the impeachment and removal being made right now also. 2600:1700:545E:400:61F3:8745:4C42:82A1 (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support ITN/R. ArionStar (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. The impeachment article seems to be the main one here, I think like an election we wouldn't normally bold any other articles given there's a dedicated page for this. And there's support from ArionStar, the quality looks reasonable on that one to me. We can swap in a pic in a little while, after the Nobel peace prize has had a reasonable run. — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The article sadly isn't in an ideal shape – there is an orange tag and quite a few "clarification needed" statement, which all seem to center on the reason for the impeachment not being made very clear throughout the article (and, consequently, not being able to be properly summarized in the lead). "Crisis of insecurity" and "erosion of the government" are mentioned, but specific explanations are missing, and clarification by editors familiar with the Peruvian political crisis would be more than welcome. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) 2025 Pakistani airstrikes in Kabul
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Pakistani airstrike in Kabul kills TTP chief Noor Wali Mehsud. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, The Washington Post, AP, Bloomberg, Amu TV
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Oppose on Notability and quality "Pakistan kill local Taliban leader" seems fairly routine. The associated pages for it, show that it's a relatively normal event. The Israeli strikes on Hamas in Qatar was posted, because that was out of the ordinary, due to the location. The page itself is also lacking. Overall, can understand it being nominated though. Basetornado (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support on notability per our own precedence from the Qatar strike (which I'll admit I voted against) - it's one sovereign nation conducting a targeted airstrike on the densely-populated capital city of another sovereign nation. However, oppose on quality as the article is a too-short mess. The Kip (contribs) 05:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- That precedence was due to Israel not having struck Qatar previously. Pakistan have struck Afghanistan multiple times in the last year. Basetornado (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Seems hazy as of now what was hit and who was killed, the article quality is not upto par. But would support if the blurb turns out to be true. Pakistan has hit Afghanistan (bordering areas) and has assassinated Pakistani Taliban (TTP) leaders, but this is the chief of that and this is in the capital. Completely unprecedented. Gotitbro (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment None of the sources mention Pakistan as being responsible for the strike. The only source mentioning Pakistani involvement dates from August 29 and is about a completely different attack. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait The details still seem unclear and the death of Mehsud has not been confirmed. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose I"m really concerned about the neutrality and, well, truth of the article. No sources have confirmed that it was a Pakistani airstrike, or even if anyone was killed. Al Jazeera and AP both report that Kabul has said no-one was killed or injured and that the Taliban has only accused Pakistan or carrying out the strikes. This seems like a pretty bit NPOV violation for now and there is no way we can post this in the current state. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose There's always been these conflicts in the middle border, and such spats rarely last for more than a few days, making it hard to support an ongoing (its basically a decades-long ongoing issue which is not really a type of conflict we can feature). That said, assuming the death is confirmed, remember that can qualify for a normal RD line. Masem (t) 13:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the blurb isn't enough to meet WP:ITNSIGNIF, and as he is now believed to be alive, that means he isn't RD-eligible either, as per basic common sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - nothing here. Move on. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
2025 Davao Oriental earthquakes
[edit]Blurb: A magnitude-7.4 earthquake strikes Davao Region, Philippines. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A doublet earthquake struck the Davao Region, Philippines, killing ten people.
News source(s): The Guardian, BBC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Quake1234 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Another strongest earthquake in the Philippines in 11 days, after Cebu. There's a report of significant damage ([4], [5]). 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 03:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait there's currently an {{in use}} tag on the page. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 03:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait and likely Oppose Only hit 3-4 hours ago as of time of writing. Current reporting is showing some damage, but overall relatively minor. The most severe damage in the BBC reporting at least is a photo from the Cebu Earthquake. Unless there is more widespread damage reported, which there may well be. I would likely oppose on notability. Basetornado (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for full impact. 193.183.210.238 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support article is well cited and looks good. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape, sufficient details on the current death toll and injuries (The requested move tag is not a show stopper for us) Masem (t) 14:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Earthquakes are common in the Philippines. It does not appear that there have been a large number of fatalities. For now, if the number does not increase, I am opposing. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike the Cebu earthquake which we did post a few weeks ago, this is thankfully relatively minor in impact. Gotitbro (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose While the article is well-cited and in good shape, the death toll is not higher than that of the Cebu earthquake eleven days ago. I’ll support it once the death toll increases and it gains international media attention. HurricaneEdgar 04:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support This is a major earthquake in magnitude, and many damages were sustained due to this although this is lacking in casualties. This article is relatively good quality per the others.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter")
04:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)- Is it that major @TheNuggeteer? There's about 10 to 20 7+ earthquakes a year. There was a 7.6 magnitude quake off South America the same day, and two further quakes the same size or larger in the last month. There's already been 14 7+ earthquakes this year. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- This earthquake is the 7th strongest earthquake this year by magnitude. The last earthquake in the Philippines larger than this was the December 2023 Mindanao earthquake, with a moment magnitude of 7.4. This is also the 5th deadliest earthquake in 2025 and the deadliest earthquake in the Philippines (excluding the 2025 Cebu earthquake) since the November 2023 Mindanao earthquake. In these terms, I think this article is suitable enough for ITN.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter")
08:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- This earthquake is the 7th strongest earthquake this year by magnitude. The last earthquake in the Philippines larger than this was the December 2023 Mindanao earthquake, with a moment magnitude of 7.4. This is also the 5th deadliest earthquake in 2025 and the deadliest earthquake in the Philippines (excluding the 2025 Cebu earthquake) since the November 2023 Mindanao earthquake. In these terms, I think this article is suitable enough for ITN.
- Is it that major @TheNuggeteer? There's about 10 to 20 7+ earthquakes a year. There was a 7.6 magnitude quake off South America the same day, and two further quakes the same size or larger in the last month. There's already been 14 7+ earthquakes this year. Nfitz (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
October 9
[edit]
October 9, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Wanda Perdelwitz
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kölner Stadtanzeiger
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: German actress, known as the police sergeant from a long-running tv series, but also active on stage, in film and audio, died after a bike accident at age 41. Reports of her death, 9 Oct and later, have no date or a wrong date. The notice of death, published 10 Oct, has 6 Oct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well made article and a terribly unfortunate accident. Everything is properly sourced. --The Robot Parade (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support 4673 characters (747 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Thanks Gerda. Grimes2 18:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. AGF on non-English sources. --PFHLai (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Sister Jean
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Loyola University Chicago
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Centenarian and iconic Loyola-Chicago chaplain. Article is in good shape minus a citation for her death, which it appears there aren’t many third-party articles of yet - should just be a matter of time. The Kip (contribs) 04:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good to go. Removed some likely self-advertising. Basetornado (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support article looks good and Sister Jean was a huge hit with basketball nerds for a few years. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 12:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Mike Greenwell
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FOX Sports, KFGO
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bagumba (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: "The Gator," former MLB left fielder, race car driver, and politician in the Red Sox Hall of Fame. Article is updated and adequately sourced. The Robot Parade (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Prose is not WP:GA, but meets sufficient sourcing and breadth.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature
[edit]Blurb: The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded to Hungarian author László Krasznahorkai. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Article's award section looks like it is still being sourced out, so not yet ready to post. Also, I tried to figure out some summary of his works without too much quoting from the nobel prize statement ("for his compelling and visionary oeuvre that, in the midst of apocalyptic terror, reaffirms the power of art") but I can't come on any that seem appropriate here. Masem (t) 12:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The lists of awards and works need citations, but otherwise the article is in OK shape. I suggest moving un-cited awards to the talk page, the works should be much easier to substantiate (e.g. with an ISBN or publisher details). Modest Genius talk 12:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- That makes zero sense. That's sweeping a core part of the article under the rug. I do think editors are working on sourcing with the award today so it just needs a day or so of time. Masem (t) 13:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The works are a core part of the article, the awards are not. If that list wasn't there it would still be a valid article. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The awards are 100% a core part of the article. They establish, in part, why he was named a laureate. Masem (t) 13:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- He won the Nobel because of his writing, not because he had already won a bunch of other awards. Especially when many of them are (for Wikipedia purposes) non-notable and not verified. But if they can be cited that would make my idea moot, so feel free to take that approach instead. Modest Genius talk 14:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Certainly any non notable or non significant award should be removed even if sourced, but reading the list, most of those seem notable or significant, and sourcing is an issue due to being based in Hungary so English versions may be difficult to locate to confirm. Masem (t) 15:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLP:
Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BLP:
- Certainly any non notable or non significant award should be removed even if sourced, but reading the list, most of those seem notable or significant, and sourcing is an issue due to being based in Hungary so English versions may be difficult to locate to confirm. Masem (t) 15:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- He won the Nobel because of his writing, not because he had already won a bunch of other awards. Especially when many of them are (for Wikipedia purposes) non-notable and not verified. But if they can be cited that would make my idea moot, so feel free to take that approach instead. Modest Genius talk 14:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway the article still has other issues/templates. We cannot base a WP:BLP on his personal website.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The awards are 100% a core part of the article. They establish, in part, why he was named a laureate. Masem (t) 13:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The works are a core part of the article, the awards are not. If that list wasn't there it would still be a valid article. Modest Genius talk 13:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Huwiki and Wikidata have good refs for the same. Gotitbro (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- That makes zero sense. That's sweeping a core part of the article under the rug. I do think editors are working on sourcing with the award today so it just needs a day or so of time. Masem (t) 13:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as above, independent sources are needed for much of the text, and proper sources (or removal of uncited content) for non-notable awards is needed too. I am fine with moving unsourced awards to talkpage since they are less important than the key, notable sourced awards. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would argue that at least every blue link award should remain even if unreferenced.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle The article is short-ish, but it looks like the references have been put in order, Trepang2 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: the article is almost done but has still templates because some important part of his life is taken directly from his website. We need secondary sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: issues have been settled. Ready to go.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good now. Khuft (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- There are two CNs in the works section (I just added one to a non-blue link item under screenplays). But its tons better than when I nominated this the other day. Masem (t) 14:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I resolved the remaining CN tags (deleted one of the statements and added a reference to the other). Einstein2 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
(Closed, Pulled) Gaza war ceasefire
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Israel and Hamas announce agreement to the first phase of Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Israel and Hamas agree to the first phase of Donald Trump's Gaza peace plan (notification pictured).
Alternative blurb II: Israel and Hamas agree to the first phase of a Gaza peace plan.
Alternative blurb III: Israel and Hamas exchange hostages as part of a Gaza peace plan.
News source(s): BBC,CTV,Al Jazeera,Times of Israel,Times of Israel (Oct 8),Iran International,Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı)
Credits:
- Nominated by AstroHurricane001 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Rafi Chazon (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Dn9ahx (talk · give credit)
Article updated
![]() | The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. |
- Support The title of this article is not obvious, being variously known as a 20/21 point plan &c., and so a blurb will assist navigation per WP:ITNPURPOSE. The proposal seems to be making progress and it's certainly in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- A gentle reminder that users must be extended-confirmed(account is 30 days old with 500 edits) to comment on this topic. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support on Notability/Wait/Altblurb Agree on Notability. Would potentially wait 24 hours as wouldn't be the first ceasefire to fail in this war. Added alt blurb II. Basetornado (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until it's official. Altblrub II is better and less propagandistic, per WP:NTRUMP. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb II. Trump shouldn't be mentioned, it's not about him. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb or alt blurb II. I’m ok with mentioning Trump, the reality is the ceasefire would not of happened with out his input / actions. Ilenart626 (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's....debatable at best(meaning it shouldn't be in the blurb). Antony Blinken says it was essentially the Biden administration's plan "left in a drawer"(according to the article). There is very little evidence of personal involvement and negotiating by Trump personally(other than his usual bellicose statements and threats). 331dot (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- That's a political statement, not the place. Peace is what matters. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Adding his name to it feels inappropriate and rife for controversy. Not really necessary imo. Basetornado (talk) 10:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Trump's name is literally all over this thing – just look at the headlines, the article title and its lead. WP:NTRUMP is not policy; WP:CENSOR is. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Let's focus deeply on what's important and not on the headlines. I think you know how ITN works. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- What's important is communicating the name of the target article to our readership so that they can find it and understand what they are going to get if they click through. We're here to assist navigation not indulge in improper editorialising and censorship. Andrew🐉(talk)
- We don't censor but we don't aid propaganda, either. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- It seems remarkably unlikely that Trump has even read all 20 points, let alone had any role in writing them. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Bingo. 331dot (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Trump's name is literally all over this thing – just look at the headlines, the article title and its lead. WP:NTRUMP is not policy; WP:CENSOR is. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I have read that Israel will not stop the war unless Hamas demilitarizes, and Hamas rejected doing do. So this may end up being just a prisoner exchange. Cambalachero (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Guffaw, lots of other ceasefires in the same conflict have already happened without him. Absurd. Also his "actions" were a bunch of hollow threats, like every other prez for 40 years. Americans are not interested in war with Palestine. Propinq (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Not EC.
- Support alt blurb II CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 12:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until we actually see the hostages returned and/or confirm Israel has stopped its attacks, which is the first part of the plan. Simple agreement here is a highly questionable point given past such agreements to ceasefire. Also, while I know we cannot avoid mentioning that this is (as best we can document) Trump's plan, I would strongly avoid having to use his picture again here. Ideally if we actually get to the post where hostages are returned, we may get usable pictures from that instead. Masem (t) 12:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I find the blurbs and choice of bold link misleading. The two sides have agreed to a ceasefire, return of hostages and prisoners, and a withdrawal of some Israeli troops. They have not agreed to the entire 'peace plan'. We shouldn't be linking to an article that mostly discusses things that haven't been agreed, and we certainly shouldn't be attributing 'peace' to Trump in the blurb. Is there no article on this actual agreement, rather than the previous proposal? Modest Genius talk 12:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb does state this was the first phase of the plan, and clear that they haven't yet agreed on the full plan. Masem (t) 12:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's still misleading. They're not in phase one of an agreed plan, they've only agreed to a small part of the proposal. Bold-linking readers to a plan that hasn't been agreed is inappropriate. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that this plan, like previous plans, is being done stage by stage, rather than as an all-or-nothing bundle. The plan is said to be light on detail and so is something of a roadmap (see Road map for peace). It seems a reasonably pragmatic way of getting things done and building trust, rather like Agile. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- They already tried the same thing earlier this year and, predictably, it didn't work. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- It seems that this plan, like previous plans, is being done stage by stage, rather than as an all-or-nothing bundle. The plan is said to be light on detail and so is something of a roadmap (see Road map for peace). It seems a reasonably pragmatic way of getting things done and building trust, rather like Agile. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's still misleading. They're not in phase one of an agreed plan, they've only agreed to a small part of the proposal. Bold-linking readers to a plan that hasn't been agreed is inappropriate. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb does state this was the first phase of the plan, and clear that they haven't yet agreed on the full plan. Masem (t) 12:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/oppose "peace" deals have already fallen through enough times, and neither side has much incentive to end the war. I'll believe it when it happens. (t · c) buidhe 12:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/Oppose until more clarity on whether the deal holds. I would only blurb at a ceasefire (ie. not a hostage deal etc.). If there is an image (not sure if there should be) it should absolutely not be of Trump unless he's present at the signing or something. Peace plan is in early stages so premature to highlight on front page. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait I'll believe it when I see it This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until approved by the Israeli cabinet, but post ALT2 once it is, similar to the last ceasefire, which we posted the start of, despite the later phases collapsing after Israeli resumed hostilities. The story is the ceasefire. If there is a lasting peace agreement reached, that is significant in and of itself can be a new blurb. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Israel government has approved the plan per CBS news, Reuters via Straits Times and other outlets.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until it comes into effect. It's looking like good news but we shouldn't jump the gun and post before the ceasefire actually happens. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait per above, let’s see if it (hopefully) holds. The Kip (contribs) 17:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose based on article quality. In particular the plan's 20 points should be summarized as opposed to posted in their entirety and there's no need for an entire section of Trump statements. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose wait for hostage release, which would indicate this is going somewhere. Also, updated target as it has been moved. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Alt blurb 2. Prominent news item, article is well sourced and put together. NewishIdeas (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as per EvansHallBear. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Israel has signed the ceasefire agreement which has hostilities to end in 24 hr and hostage return in 72 hr [6]. My suggestion extending from my earlier wait is to post (assuming the quality is fixed) on the hostage return, cementing the deal. If that means moving this nom up to that date, so be it. Masem (t) 23:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- To add, the article is still not ready, several unsourced sections, issued identified above not yet addressed, and there's an unnecessary massive reaction section. Second, the phase is considered complete when the hostages are returned 72 hr after Israel stops their attacks (which should be starting now). We've been here before and things went south super fast so we absolutely should wait until the hostages are shown to have been returned, by which point the article should be of better quality. Its clear we should post this if this holds, but we shouldn't be rushing and have to pull if it goes wrong. Masem (t) 01:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until it comes into effect, as per Orbitalbuzzsaw, Patar knight, Chorchapu, The Kip, and others. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Seems like things are a done deal, no reason to sit on our hands any longer. RachelTensions (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support as this seems like it's finally be approved. Regarding the image, I would suggest File:Map of trump plan for gaza.jpg (the map of the agreed-upon withdrawal line), although it would be great if someone could make a more readable version of it suitable for small sizes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support (including image) per Chaotic Enby. Bremps... 00:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't support that image. There is so far no indication that what has been accepted this week is what was proposed on Sep 29.VR (Please ping on reply) 02:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct, looking at Al Jazeera or CBC, it looks like a slightly different withdrawal line was drawn on October 4, and the actual definitive line might be even different. I'll try to see if a more accurate map can be made. (edited 03:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support The fact of the agreement is making news now and in the headlines now. Insisting on waiting out of skepticism seems misguided; we can always adjust the blurb if circumstances change or the deal dissipates during the process of the hostage and prisoner exchanges. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- To defend my fellow misguided skeptics: it's not that we're skeptical, it's that ITN is for things that HAVE happened, not things that will/might happen. An end to the war is indeed newsworthy, but an agreement to end the war at some future time pending additional action is less so. Something being "in the news now" has never been sufficient cause to post; the significance of the event is paramount. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- But what is ultimately determinative of significance is what the reliable sources have to say about it and how they are describing it, not our subjective assessment of how long things need to be stable for the war to be "truly" over. Some cohort of skeptical wikipedia editors coming together and saying, "Even though it's being reported as a done deal now, based on my skepticism about the conflict, I think we should wait until xx number of days of stability before it becomes significant" is WP:OR. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- If there is some event that has a clear noteworthy resolution in an assured few days (in this case, the 72 hrs for the hostages to be released), we have generally waited until the resolution has been confirmed. Whereas when the time scale of the resolution is not clear (such as the case resigning political leaders that require some type of election to be replaced), then we take it on news of the initiating event, and consider posting the resolution when it actually happens, because more than likely the original event has long scrolled off the ITN box. Masem (t) 14:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- At the time of your initial support early Friday, Israel had not yet ceased bombing Gaza City. We have not yet reached sustained stability of one single day. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- But what is ultimately determinative of significance is what the reliable sources have to say about it and how they are describing it, not our subjective assessment of how long things need to be stable for the war to be "truly" over. Some cohort of skeptical wikipedia editors coming together and saying, "Even though it's being reported as a done deal now, based on my skepticism about the conflict, I think we should wait until xx number of days of stability before it becomes significant" is WP:OR. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- To defend my fellow misguided skeptics: it's not that we're skeptical, it's that ITN is for things that HAVE happened, not things that will/might happen. An end to the war is indeed newsworthy, but an agreement to end the war at some future time pending additional action is less so. Something being "in the news now" has never been sufficient cause to post; the significance of the event is paramount. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support, ceasefire in effect Personisinsterest (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt 2 but wait Looks like a done deal but we should wait for some action like ceasing of hostilities or return of POWs. Good for everyone if this actually holds but better not make the same error in judgment when we bypassed ongoing to post a barely holding ceasefire. Gotitbro (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until some concrete progress appears on the ground, and support only alt2 because the others give undue weight to Trump, whose involvement is secondary. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - another deal? At a minimum this should wait until hostages are being returned and Israeli forces are withdrawing. Otherwise this is all ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Yay!!!! Hooray!!! I am excited and happy for them! The Palestinians can return to their homes. The Israelis get all their hostages back! Of course, this is a long and recurring conflict and who knows what will happen and if there is another future war, but anyways this is exciting news for now! Wafflefrites (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb 2. Awsomaw (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment If there's a decision to be made, it's gotta be made soon - the second-oldest blurb at the moment is the Nobel Prize in Literature from the same day as this nom. The Kip (contribs) 06:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Admin comment Editors express a lot of nervousness whether the ceasefire will hold. I suppose a major step will be the release of hostages. That has to be completed by 12:00 h local time on Monday. That's Monday, 9:00 h UTC, just under 24 hours from now. I suggest that we post then if and when it happens, and we use 13 October as the posting date. Schwede66 09:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would support posting this with 13 October as the date, and adapting the blurb to add the release of the hostages. Hopefully a definitive map for the withdrawal can be confirmed and added by then. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- This seems smart. Might wanna post the retaliation if the hostage release doesn't happen (if there is retaliation, which there most likely would be). Gaismagorm (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The hostages are being planned for return on Oct 13, and there is also supposed to be a summit where the sides will sign onto the peace plan with several foreign leaders in attendance [7]. Would absolutely make sense to use Oct 13 as the date. Masem (t) 13:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- With Gaza openly moving armed forces into the areas Israel has withdrawn for, I thought the ceasefire had already failed. Step one is Hamas returning it's hostages, and step 2 is Israel returning Hamas prisoners. At a minimum both of those need to be completed, with some time to confirm that Israel simply doesn't just resume the genocide. Otherwise, this is just ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nfitz while I get the skepticism, as others have stated above, ITN is for what's in the news based on what the news is reporting, not based on the opinions of a group of skeptical-at-best/cynical-at-worst Wikipedia editors. The Kip (contribs) 06:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'd agree with you @The Kip, except that it is already featured in ongoing - so yes, the news is reporting it. But is it any more than a casual blip in the genocide? Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nfitz while I get the skepticism, as others have stated above, ITN is for what's in the news based on what the news is reporting, not based on the opinions of a group of skeptical-at-best/cynical-at-worst Wikipedia editors. The Kip (contribs) 06:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment For those waiting for proper events as mentioned above - the IDF has withdrawn to the first withdrawal line of the agreement, and Hamas has now begun to hand over the living hostages to the Red Cross. The Kip (contribs) 06:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 06:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66 I agree with your posting, and using Monday as the posting date. But it appears this was not done as it is gone already. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- It was pulled, see discussion at Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors#'exchange hostages'. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
October 8
[edit]
October 8, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Tofail Ahmed
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Star, New Age
Credits:
- Updated by Niasoh (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Bangladesh academic and local governance expert. --11:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Pannir Selvam Pranthaman
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, Malay Mail
Credits:
- Updated by NelsonLee20042020 (talk · give credit) and TrumpBiden (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Malaysian drug trafficker executed in Singapore. --11:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Joan Bennett Kennedy
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People Reuters NBC Boston
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Deathisallaroundus (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American socialite, author, and advocate, best known as the first wife of US Senator Ted Kennedy. ItsShandog (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support article seems alright. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 19:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Well-cited, and the tag about uncited cats doesn’t mean we shouldn’t post, in my view, though it should be dealt with. Jusdafax (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
(Closed as stale) Nobel Prize in Chemistry
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar M. Yaghi (pictured) for their work on metal–organic frameworks. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
One or both nominated events are 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.
- Comment: as usual we have to wait for the cleanup crew. Big no for Kitagawa as of now. Robson and Yaghi have a few templates too. ReyHahn (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, then, support once the edits stop rolling in. The other Nobel Prize articles are ready already. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 19:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready. Robson's article is short but just about acceptable. Kitagawa's is covered in citation tags so needs work to address those. Yaghi's is much more extensive but has orange-tagged sections; this might be the most difficult to address. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Kitagawa and Yaghi articles requiere a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I asked the WP:CHEMISTRY Wikiproject for help.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Great. Inform us when they are improved. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Kitagawa is ready. Yaghi needs more work but that can be solved by just removing content. ReyHahn (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Great. Inform us when they are improved. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I asked the WP:CHEMISTRY Wikiproject for help.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
October 7
[edit]
October 7, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: Alan Hawley
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.brentfordfc.com/en/news/article/club-news-alan-hawley-1946-2025
Credits:
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English professional footballer. --11:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Article is fully sourced, albeit somewhat short. I don't the size of the prose detracts however. --The Robot Parade (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Looking for sentence in the main prose mentioning his date and place of birth with a footnote or two. Any help? --PFHLai (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC) Found one and added it. --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Graham Bell
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ruru, Karanama; Marriner, Chris (2025-10-08), "Police Ten 7 host Graham Bell dies", Stuff, archived from the original on 2025-10-07, retrieved 2025-10-08
Credits:
- Nominated by Cloventt (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: New Zealand police officer and television presenter. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Updated a few things. No issues. Basetornado (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well sourced and cited, and seems to be about as long as it's going to be. --The Robot Parade (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above. Jusdafax (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Sir John Gurdon
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): University of Cambridge
Credits:
- Nominated by TMCapet (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Biologist and Nobel laureate. TMCapet (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support clearly notable person in addition to article being of good quality TheFellaVB (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: For future reference, notability is usually assumed with RD nominations and not taken into account for RD. --The Robot Parade (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- TheFellaVB, ping for you FYI. Schwede66 23:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I saw, just didn't have anything to say in response TheFellaVB (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- TheFellaVB, ping for you FYI. Schwede66 23:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: For future reference, notability is usually assumed with RD nominations and not taken into account for RD. --The Robot Parade (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Added further info and moved some things from career to personal life. Seems good to go. Basetornado (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Agree this is ready for RD. Jusdafax (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone who knows biology have a look at John Gurdon#Nuclear transfer, please? Need more REFs there? --PFHLai (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC) There are also a few awards listed in the infobox that need to be elaborated upon in the main prose with REFs there. --PFHLai (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Mohamed Tahir Ayala
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sudan Akhbar, altaghyeer.info
Credits:
- Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit)
- Updated by The Robot Parade (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Last prime minister of Sudan under Omar al-Bashir. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support: The article could use more expansion, but unsure if proper sources exist for such a task. Otherwise, the one CN has been resolved and everything else is properly cited.--The Robot Parade (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The exact death date is not in current citation. Can't assume it's necessarily the article publish date.—Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- There is now a new footnote linking to an article in Arabic which stated that he "passed away ... Monday morning in Cairo" (Google Translation on my screen). Good enough? --PFHLai (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics
[edit]Blurb: The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to John Clarke, Michel Devoret (pictured) , and John M. Martinis for their work on macroscopic quantum phenomena. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to John Clarke, Michel Devoret, and John M. Martinis for their discoveries regarding macroscopic quantum phenomena in superconducting electrical circuits.
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are 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.
Davey2116 (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wait:as usual articles are full of problems with WP:BLP. Users are rushing in to edit, let's see what happens.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: the bold links must be to the articles on the winners, not the general article about the prize. Amended the blurb and template above. Modest Genius talk 11:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Not ready. Clarke and Devoret's articles are stubs with orange-level warnings, and Martinis is only slightly better. Substantial work is required to bring all three articles up to a postable standard.Modest Genius talk 11:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
The articles are improving rapidly. Clarke's now seems fine. Devoret's has a couple of sourcing tags but is otherwise OK (not great) on a quick look. Martinis has the most work still to do.Modest Genius talk 18:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. These are pretty basic biographies - only Clarke's has much description of their research - but they now just about meet our minimum requirements. Modest Genius talk 16:44, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality; orange tags among other quality issues. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Update: John Clarke (physicist) seems fine, waiting for the other two.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps, although it is still extremely light on detail about his career. Did he do nothing else after the 1980s? And even that groundbreaking work that earned him the prize only commands a couple of sentences... — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Of course they have done more that just one Nobel worthy publication but users are rushing in to add unreferenced stuff and mostly infobox content. I am trying to clean up the articles as we go and we have other laureates coming soon. At least articles should be WP:BLP admissible. I can work on expanding if I have the time, you are also invited to contribute.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps, although it is still extremely light on detail about his career. Did he do nothing else after the 1980s? And even that groundbreaking work that earned him the prize only commands a couple of sentences... — Amakuru (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Two thirds, one to go: In terms of cleanup, only John M. Martinis is suffering still from unsourced content.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the alternative blob fails WP:SEAOFBLUE.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: I erased all concerns. The articles are clean now. Please consider alternative blurb but without a link to electric circuits.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support The 3 articles look fine to me. Tradediatalk 16:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support all three articles are beyond stubs, reasonably comprehensive at this point, and fully sourced Masem (t) 16:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support: The three articles seem OK. Well sourced, and full enough. —Wasell(T) 16:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support articles are ready to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks like sourcing is in good shape now. =JaventheAldericky= (Would you like to talk to me?) 13:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: this item has been ready for over 24 hours. Modest Genius talk 17:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 22:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
RD: Ben Lewis (Australian actor)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People Deadline 9News
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by EleniXDD (talk · give credit), Quizical (talk · give credit) and Basetornado (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Australian musical theatre actor best known for his portrayal of the Phantom in Love Never Dies and The Phantom of the Opera. ItsShandog (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support Rewrote small sections. Seems ready to go. No major issues. Basetornado (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Good to go. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Prose sections at present are "Early life", "Education" and "Personal life" without a prose section discussing his acting career. SpencerT•C 14:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs some career prose, apart from the lead, per Spencer. At a minimum, this obit can be used to highlight some notable roles, aside from the table.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
References
[edit]Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: