Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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

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.

Dina Boluarte in 2024
Dina Boluarte

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

[edit]
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Archives

[edit]

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

Sections

[edit]

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


October 14

[edit]

Article: Windows 10 (talk · history · tag)
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:

 Koltinn (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

[edit]

RD: Miss Major Griffin-Gracy

[edit]
Article: Miss Major Griffin-Gracy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.advocate.com/news/miss-major-griffin-gracy-obituary
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American LGBTQ activist. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sandy Alomar Sr.

[edit]
Article: Sandy Alomar Sr. (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

(Posted) New Gaza ceasefire blurb

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Gaza peace plan (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You can propose another altblurb if you want something different. Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support ALT1 per above. The Kip (contribs) 19:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    I was looking for waiting, but it was posted, so it probably won't happen. QalasQalas (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 21:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb3 I now prefer Alt3 per Basetornado. FlipandFlopped 00:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 Posted. El_C 02:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please, add the image. ArionStar (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's currently listed for deletion (link). El_C 03:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nobel Prize in Economics

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Joel Mokyr (talk · history · tag) and Philippe Aghion (talk · history · tag) and Peter Howitt (economist) (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

Update Gaza war in Ongoing with peace plan

[edit]
Article: Gaza peace plan (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • Support5225C (talk • contributions) 11:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Also far too early to call the genocide over. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, this should be a separate blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:48, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Support for a blurb. Come back to this once it's done. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 13:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    FWIW, I oppose removing the genocide link. Modest Genius talk 18:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Tipping points in the climate system

[edit]

Nominator's comments: This is major climate news Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

[edit]

RD: Saleh al-Jafarawi

[edit]
Article: Saleh al-Jafarawi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Palestinian journalist killed during the ceasefire. Article looks good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Benjamin Bathurst (Royal Navy officer)

[edit]
Article: Benjamin Bathurst (Royal Navy officer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gibraltar Chronicle
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Royal Navy officer. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday is now cited. Dormskirk (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025 Mexico floods and landslides

[edit]
Article: October 2025 Mexico floods and landslides (talk · history · tag)
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:

Nominator's comments: Unusual floods. ArionStar (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Seychelles election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Seychellois general election (talk · history · tag)
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Fixed.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still the opposition leader. Not really necessary, but it's not misleading. Basetornado (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Altblurb Added altblurb, run-off creates unneccessary confusion. Elected is clearer. Basetornado (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added "is" to your blurb for grammar.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:4476:DB5D:32B8:134 (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Support so long as President is head of state of Seychelles. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 03:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

2025 Madagascar coup

[edit]
Article: 2025 Madagascar coup d'état (talk · history · tag)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

October 11

[edit]

RD: Tony Fitzpatrick

[edit]
Article: Tony Fitzpatrick (artist) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Chicago Tribune
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Chicago artist and media personality KConWiki (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jesse L. Douglas

[edit]
Article: Jesse L. Douglas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Diane Keaton

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Diane Keaton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American actress Diane Keaton (pictured) dies at the age of 79 (Post)
News source(s): People Variety
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning American actress known for Annie Hall and The Godfather. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well, my day is ruined. One of the greats. Article looks good. estar8806 (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Estar8806, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There is a section Acting style and Legacy showcasing her impact. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
Support blurb : Really sad news Cinaroot (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cinaroot, please clarify whether your support is for RD or for a blurb. Schwede66 23:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66 RD Cinaroot (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Robert Redford got less hits than her. Cinaroot (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 21:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Then Maggie Smith and Robert Redford shouldn't have been blurped too Varoon2542 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose Blurb Great actor, blurb isn't really necessary. Not every actor needs to be blurbed. Basetornado (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She’s wasn’t just any actress. Suggest you read or reread her Legacy section. Jusdafax (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There should be OLDWOMANDIES... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ideally none of them would be! This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Stephen 01:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD --QalasQalas (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 17:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

RD: Flavius Domide

[edit]
Article: Flavius Domide (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ian Watkins

[edit]
Article: Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Standard
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Former singer and child rapist. 48. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Multiple news stations reporting this. GeminiHeron (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C)

October 10

[edit]

RD: Michael Pratt

[edit]
Article: Michael Pratt (GC) (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 Accurate Energetic Systems explosion

[edit]
Article: 2025 Tennessee manufacturing plant explosion (talk · history · tag)
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:

 ArionStar (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
18 likely deaths is not “few” though? PrimalMustelid (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This figure was not then confirmed. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support. High number of fatalities in a rare manufacturing plant explosion in the United States. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

French Prime Minister

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Sébastien Lecornu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Sébastien Lecornu (pictured) is reappointed as French prime minister by President Emmanuel Macron (Post)
News source(s): BBC, France24
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 22:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment - I thought this had been correctly closed. Why was it reopened? GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would it have been "correctly closed"? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RD: John Lodge

[edit]
Article: John Lodge (musician) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian The Independent
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English musician best known as the bass guitarist, vocalist, and songwriter for the Moody Blues. ItsShandog (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Peace Prize

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: María Corina Machado (talk · history · tag)
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)[reply]

(Posted) Peruvian president Dina Boluarte removed

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Dina Boluarte (talk · history · tag) and Impeachment of Dina Boluarte (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

The the other altblurbs do not highlight him.2A00:F3C:4C6C:0:3908:CE13:CC6D:FFAF (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support ITN/R. ArionStar (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

(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.


Articles: 2025 Pakistani airstrikes in Kabul (talk · history · tag) and Noor Wali Mehsud (talk · history · tag)
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:

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.
 Ainty Painty (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Wait The details still seem unclear and the death of Mehsud has not been confirmed. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose - nothing here. Move on. Nfitz (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2025 Davao Oriental earthquakes

[edit]
Article: 2025 Davao Oriental earthquakes (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

Wait there's currently an {{in use}} tag on the page. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 03:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

October 9

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Wanda Perdelwitz

[edit]
Article: Wanda Perdelwitz (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Kölner Stadtanzeiger
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: German 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)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sister Jean

[edit]
Article: Sister Jean (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Loyola University Chicago
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)[reply]

Support Good to go. Removed some likely self-advertising. Basetornado (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mike Greenwell

[edit]
Article: Mike Greenwell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FOX Sports, KFGO
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: "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)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: László Krasznahorkai (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Literature is awarded to Hungarian author László Krasznahorkai. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Huwiki and Wikidata have good refs for the same. Gotitbro (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    I would argue that at least every blue link award should remain even if unreferenced.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support: issues have been settled. Ready to go.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good now. Khuft (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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.


Proposed image
Secretary Rubio notifies Trump that agreement has been reached.
Article: Gaza peace plan (talk · history · tag)
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:

Article updated
 AstroHurricane001 (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC) [reply]
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)[reply]
Wait until it's official. Altblrub II is better and less propagandistic, per WP:NTRUMP. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)
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.[reply]
  • Support alt blurb II CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 12:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    They already tried the same thing earlier this year and, predictably, it didn't work. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 14:24, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support, ceasefire in effect Personisinsterest (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 8

[edit]

RD: Tofail Ahmed

[edit]
Article: Tofail Ahmed (professor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Star, New Age
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Bangladesh academic and local governance expert. --11:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

RD: Pannir Selvam Pranthaman

[edit]
Article: Pannir Selvam Pranthaman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, Malay Mail
Credits:
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Malaysian drug trafficker executed in Singapore. --11:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joan Bennett Kennedy

[edit]
Article: Joan Bennett Kennedy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People Reuters NBC Boston
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: American socialite, author, and advocate, best known as the first wife of US Senator Ted KennedyItsShandog (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(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.


Proposed image
Articles: Susumu Kitagawa (talk · history · tag) and Richard Robson (chemist) (talk · history · tag)
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:

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: Robson article is good, other two need work Masem (t) 14:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose Kitagawa and Yaghi articles requiere a lot of work. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the WP:CHEMISTRY Wikiproject for help.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Inform us when they are improved. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kitagawa is ready. Yaghi needs more work but that can be solved by just removing content. ReyHahn (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 7

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Alan Hawley

[edit]
Article: Alan Hawley (footballer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.brentfordfc.com/en/news/article/club-news-alan-hawley-1946-2025
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: English professional footballer. --11:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Graham Bell

[edit]
Article: Graham Bell (police officer) (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

Support Updated a few things. No issues. Basetornado (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Sir John Gurdon

[edit]
Article: John Gurdon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): University of Cambridge
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Biologist and Nobel laureate. TMCapet (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support clearly notable person in addition to article being of good quality TheFellaVB (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

RD: Mohamed Tahir Ayala

[edit]
Article: Mohamed Tahir Ayala (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sudan Akhbar, altaghyeer.info
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Last prime minister of Sudan under Omar al-BashirMr. Lechkar (talk) 10:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physics

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: John Clarke (physicist) (talk · history · tag) and Michel Devoret (talk · history · tag) and John M. Martinis (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

RD: Ben Lewis (Australian actor)

[edit]
Article: Ben Lewis (Australian actor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): People Deadline 9News
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: 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)[reply]

Support Rewrote small sections. Seems ready to go. No major issues. Basetornado (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good to go. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: