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.
February 24
[edit]
February 24, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Law and crime
|
February 23
[edit]
February 23, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) German federal election
[edit]Blurb: In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union), led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union) wins the most seats in the Bundestag.
Alternative blurb II: In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union) wins the most seats in the Bundestag, while the far-right AfD comes in second.
Alternative blurb III: In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union), led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag, while the far-right AfD comes in second.
News source(s): Tagesschau, Al jazeera, DW, CNN, Ruters, the Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Haers6120 (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.
Nominator's comments: Federal election in Germany, with ARD/Infratest-dimap and ZDF exit polls project CDU/CSU wins most seats; I also include Merz in the original blurb, as unlike Scholz, Merz is also leader of the CDU. I also added a concise altblurb. Update: vote counting started. Haers6120 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Controversial opinion: I think we should mention the AfD getting the second most seats.
- Yes we dont normally post runner ups, but a fascist party getting the second most seats not just in any European country but in Germany, in 2025, I think is a strong enough reason to get them into the blurb. Udder1882 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Done, Alt II added, we will let community decides. Haers6120 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not a consensus that AfD is Fascist. If we are to put it up it's because the AfD is the first new party in Germany to become Opposition since the Greens in the 90s, making this one of the most significant moments in modern German history 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:CC1F:63C9:8B16:FA1F (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not a precedent to mention this per se (the communists losing a provincial government in west bengal was posted), but runner ups are never mentioned.Sportsnut24 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose any mention of AfD, unless they join a coalition. If ITN's usual response to gay marriage in Europe stories is "all the rest of them did it years ago", then this is even less unusual. Depending on your personal definitions, parties in the same boat as AfD govern Italy, hold ministries in Finland, always come runner-up in France, won the most seats in Austria... What I like about ITN is the directness without the editorialising and fearmongering that newspapers have to do to survive. AfD is incredibly unlikely to form a coalition with the CDU, and even more unlikely to ever break the German political system that is built for plurality. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- AfD were opposition in the 2017-2021 Bundestag This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Wait for actual results, for obvious reasons.Weak oppose altblurb 2 because the only notable part of that for me is how it will affect the political firewall, which will only be certain once coalition talks are underway. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)- Support It's been called now. Will also reiterate that I still think we should only include AfD in the blurb if they end up breaking the firewall. Yo.dazo (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until we get the actual results. It's known that people are often shy about telling pollsters they voted for the far right. Secretlondon (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - just watching live - not a single vote reported yet. Just polling. This should have been nominated. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait It takes no more than one or two days for the final result of a federal election in Germany to be announced. support blurb3 (mention friedrich merz and of AfD as runner-up, as it has become a People's Party). --Augustgeborener (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for final results and support mention of AfD as runner-up. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 00:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for final results and support once all tags fixed Shadow4dark (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for final results and then support altblurb2 once they are in. The German far right's surge in suport has been a focal point within much of the global coverage of this election and is of monumental significance for the political future of Europe. Most of the headlines in reliable sources are including the AfD's second place-finish for precisely this reason; I think it is fair for ITN to mirror how the RS is reporting it. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support original blurb, as per Liechtenstein and Kosovo was posted. ArionStar (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait pending final results and support mentioning newsworthy AFD showing. TheSavageNorwegian 01:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb1 result is clear This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb2 The AfD's rise in support is a notable aspect of this election, and has been covered by news discussing the election. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for a coalition to form and then report on the election of a new chancellor. 675930s (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The final provisional result has now been announced. Gust Justice (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support original blurb per precedence and above arguments. The Kip (contribs) 04:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 04:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn’t it be mentioned that they still fell short of a majority. I’m not super familiar with the German system but I imagine it would be relevant. –DMartin 05:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- there has never been a single party in germany gaining 50 % of the votes - Union got once, in the 1957 elections, 50 % of the vote though. Augustgeborener (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Change per dmartin969. I would prefer it say they won "a plurality of seats" instead of "the most seats" as that makes clear enough (in my opinion) that they did not win a majority. Since they operate on a parliamentary system, it's not just who wins the most seats leads government - they have to form a coalition with other parties. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. 'Plurality' is a jargon term that is incredibly rare outside American English. 'Most seats' is better for WP:COMMONALITY. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed. Secretlondon (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. 'Plurality' is a jargon term that is incredibly rare outside American English. 'Most seats' is better for WP:COMMONALITY. Modest Genius talk 12:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Nasrallah funeral
[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: Thousands attend the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, Lebanon. (Post)
News source(s): AJ
Credits:
- Nominated by Sportsnut24 (talk · give credit)
- Created by BasselHarfouch (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose We posted his assassination, so I don't think we need to post his funeral, even given that it was purposely delayed. Its not like we posted the additional events in the wake of the deaths of QE II or Thatcher, for example, though we had "death of..." articles there. --Masem (t) 16:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I’m not too sure that the funeral, even though it’s large, passes notability. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 16:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article quality is quite poor, and the event itself is not necessarily a marker of notability. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. This was only notable because Hassan Nasrallah was assassinated, and that already got into ITN. Unless something else happened/started during the funeral, this is not a notable event in and of itself. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Soft support article needs some serious work, but judging by how it's getting coverage from the NYT, AP, CNN, and BBC I think it passes notability requirements. Scuba 19:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is effectively similar to a state funeral that many world leaders get when they die; since we usually blurb those, the funeral itself is not generally considered an ITN item. We already posted the death, and the funeral was just delayed. Masem (t) 19:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing as how Israel used it to flex bombing Beruit again I think this is different. It's not common for a state funeral to have another country fly warplanes over the crowd of mourners threatening to bomb them. Scuba 19:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- This begs the question: if the Israeli attack is the whole reason why it's so important, why is the nom for the funeral and not the attack? Yo.dazo (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Seeing as how Israel used it to flex bombing Beruit again I think this is different. It's not common for a state funeral to have another country fly warplanes over the crowd of mourners threatening to bomb them. Scuba 19:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- This is effectively similar to a state funeral that many world leaders get when they die; since we usually blurb those, the funeral itself is not generally considered an ITN item. We already posted the death, and the funeral was just delayed. Masem (t) 19:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose This is a little unusual, since typically when a world leader dies we blurb the death and then the funeral occurs in due course (within days to weeks of the death). In that "typical situation", even if the funeral was notable or broke records, there would be no debate that we ought not put back to back blurbs about the same figure, potentially even both appearing on the main page at the same time. Although that's not the case here, something feels off about blurbing people like Jimmy Carter or Queen Elizabeth only once and then giving two blurbs to Nasrallah. There's an implication he is somehow more notable. FlipandFlopped ツ
- Oppose since we posted the death This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose His death is notable, the funeral... not so much. Editor 5426387 (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
February 22
[edit]
February 22, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Bruce M. Selya
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe; Providence Journal
Credits:
- Nominated by Extraordinary Writ (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: Sesquipedalian nonagenarian. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Berlin International Film Festival
[edit]Blurb: At the Berlin International Film Festival, Dreams (Sex Love) (director Dag Johan Haugerud pictured) wins the Golden Bear. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Dreams (Sex Love) (director Dag Johan Haugerud pictured) wins the Golden Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival.
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (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.
ArionStar (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. Added altblurb, like this format. Moraljaya67 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment There's very little prose, the article is basically entirely lists and tables. Maybe at least a background section? Or something about the ceremony itself? 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Slight preference for alt blurb at the moment on quality (as said above, 75th Berlin International Film Festival consists mostly of lists and tables, which isn't acceptable under WP:ITNQUALITY; alt blurb still links the article but at least it isn't the emboldened one), but in principle I'm neutral on blurb choice, as we've used the format of the original blurb in the past as well. Liu1126 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Attack on EU mission in Sofia
[edit]Blurb: Thousands of Revival supporters attempt to storm a European Union mission in Sofia, Bulgaria in opposition to the planned adoption of the euro. (Post)
News source(s): RFE/RL, Reuters, Politico, Deutsche Welle, Euronews
Credits:
- Nominated by Chetsford (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- If someone is interested in adding a paragraph about this and the events leading up to it to Bulgaria and the euro, that would be the ideal place to cover the storming in my opinion and could then be the bolded link. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment shouldn’t the target article be Bulgaria and the Euro? Not the Revival page? Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Changed target article per Ion.want.uu's suggestion. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose target article should be about the attack, not the overall adoption process. Seeing as how the attack has no page, it shouldn't be ITN. If things change and an article is made I'll change my vote. Scuba 18:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I just checked, but the attack isn't even mentioned in the target article. Scuba 18:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Per above, Fakescientist8000 changed the target article to one that doesn't mention the attack. Chetsford (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- You have this backwards. The storming is part of the history of the euro adoption, and that's where it should be covered. The only reason to split off individual parts of a subject's history is if there are WP:SIZE concerns in the main article, which there are not. People sometimes do these splits prematurely just so they can take credit for an ITN, which is a little disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Also, I just checked, but the attack isn't even mentioned in the target article. Scuba 18:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality The new target article isn't updated. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
February 21
[edit]
February 21, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
Real Plaza Trujillo roof collapse
[edit]Blurb: The food court's roof of the Real Plaza Trujillo shopping center (pictured) collapses, leaving at least eight people dead and 84 injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Peru, the roof of the Real Plaza Trujillo shopping center (pictured) collapses, leaving at least eight people dead and 84 injured.
News source(s): Metro
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Article updated
ArionStar (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on notabilty it is not necessary to nominate every tragedy that occurs and has an article in Wikipedia, especially when it has become clear more than once recently that the number of deaths is a determining factor in assessing the ITN-worthiness of your nominations. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alsor. Deaths do not inherently = ITN, and with all due respect I’m becoming a bit tired of your “throw everything at the wall and see what gets posted” nom strategy. The Kip (contribs) 00:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. Roof collapse at a mall (though deadly) is local news. I am unsure if the article itself is notable for Wikipedia. Natg 19 (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Eight people dead (as of now). A national period of mourning being announced, clearly not a regular disaster news. Gotitbro (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. People dying is not what makes something notable or significant. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 05:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Seems quite similar to the recent Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse which we posted. There were political consequences for that and this case also seems similar because of the history of political disputes about the structure which the article explains. This history is the sort of coverage over time which we use as a test for accidents per WP:PERSISTENCE. These details make the article reasonably substantial and so readers will not be disappointed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Speaking of political consequences, the article doesn't mention any so far, also WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yo.dazo (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Some politics came first in this case. And there are consequences now. For example, per Philenews
"Carlos Rodriguez-Pastor, the president of Intercorp and Peru’s wealthiest individual, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in connection with the incident."
- Andrew🐉(talk) 19:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Some politics came first in this case. And there are consequences now. For example, per Philenews
- Speaking of political consequences, the article doesn't mention any so far, also WP:CRYSTALBALL. Yo.dazo (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Had to consider this for a good while as well, but this really isn't notable either in terms of casualties or political impact. Yo.dazo (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Comparable to the type of significance that we're saw for something like the Grenfell Tower fire in London, in that they're looking at the fault of the design and considering criminal charges for this. This isn't like an accidental house fire. --Masem (t) 02:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment No strong opinion about whether this should be posted, but if it is it needs a better blurb. I've added an altblurb that I think is better (more grammatical, gives geographical context) but not necessarily the best. The article states the collapse was "mainly the food court and children's play area" not the roof of the food court specifically which is why I left that bit out, but no objection to adding it back if others prefer. Thryduulf (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Lynne Marie Stewart
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by Vanilla Wizard (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 actress known for her roles in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and The Pee-wee Herman Show. Article will need some work before this can be posted (Career section needs more sources). Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as I've orange-tagged the article for a general lack of citations. The Kip (contribs) 05:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
February 20
[edit]
February 20, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
RD: Jerry Butler
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by Ollieisanerd (talk · give credit)
- Created by TUF-KAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ghmyrtle (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 soul singer. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Solo career section is orange tagged, and the Canadian portion of the Singles table needs citations. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ilkka Kuusisto
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): YLE
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Influential in Finnish music as organist, radio programmer, director of music publisher, choir master of the Finnish National Opera, and then its General Manager, and all the time also a composer, prolific in operas. We had a 2007 article with Finnish sources --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - The article is pretty short but I think it’s long enough to post. I noticed you recently did a lot of sourcing on it Gerda - thank you! It looks good from a citation aspect ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good quality. Yakikaki (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – robertsky (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Oded Lifshitz
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): JTA, BBC News, Haaretz
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Pachu Kannan (talk · give credit) and Leaky.Solar (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: Israeli journalist, peace activist, and hostage, body returned to Israel yesterday shortly after confirmation of death. The Kip (contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - article looks well sourced to me ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - good article. Lova Falk (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Ariel and Kfir Bibas
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Ariel and Kfir Bibas (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Nice4What (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: The bodies of Ariel and Kfir Bibas were identified by Israel after being transferred during the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire. Arguably the most-known hostages as part of the ongoing crisis, this has recent widespread international attention. Though this article isn't directly about the children, I believe their deaths (now confirmed) are significant enough to qualify for RD. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Should this not also include Shiri, the wife/their mother, as well as Oded Lifshitz, remains also passed on this last exchange? This is a tricky situation as I don't think this turnover itself is sufficient ITN beyond what's already in the ongoing. Maybe a blurb in terms of being an unusual death? Masem (t) 19:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Shiri's body was not returned (Hamas gave Israel an unidentified body) so her death has yet to be officially confirmed. Perhaps a separate RD could be proposed for Lifshitz too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Masem Lifshitz has been proposed as a separate RD, but for the moment it appears Shiri's body was not actually returned. The Kip (contribs) 20:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure they fit the criteria for "recently died"/"death announced within the last seven days". Their deaths were announced in 2023, though they were only confirmed now. Estreyeria (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Estreyeria Hamas had claimed in 2023 that they were dead, but the deaths weren't independently verified until just a few days ago. The Kip (contribs) 21:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support on a blurb here. I don’t think this quite qualifies for a RD because the article isn’t about individual people (this is a really gray area) but I do think it fits the criteria for death announced in the past seven days, since Hamas isn’t a verifiable source. The article’s quality is good and this is certainly a big story that I have been seeing on multiple news sites. I believe Hamas has recently handed over a fifth body they claim is Shiri’s, so soon we may be able to add her to the blurb when that is verified. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb: I don't think this is significant enough to override the "ongoing factor." RD is enough for all four individuals. MT(710) 10:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Oppose RD None of them are notable enough to qualify for their own Wikipedia article. The only coverage about them is due to the conflict which is/was already in Ongoing for a long time. RIP but we would never consider RD for any Palestinians who died in the conflict due to systemic bias (not just Wikipedia but wider Western media).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.198.105 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Striking - the Bibas family story/article falls under ARBPIA ECR, and as a result IPs aren't allowed to comment. The Kip (contribs) 04:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
This is mentioned below the nomination. Also, please do not forget to sign your comments TNM101 (chat) 04:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)- @TNM101 worth noting I've struck their comment anyways - it was an IP, and given ARBPIA ECR they weren't allowed to comment here in the first place. The Kip (contribs) 04:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, weak support blurb, but seeking clarification I've seen very mixed messages on whether non-biographical articles can qualify someone for RD per WP:RD. Personally, I don't see why it would matter whether the death is notable because of the lifelong achievements of the individual or instead the manner of death/other one-time event which happened to that person. Isn't the whole point to communicate recent deaths which are in the news, and both categories of death meet that criterion? But, in any event, I think the intense global coverage, "orange heart" social media movement, and public outcry related to their deaths brings it into the realm of potentially blurb-worthy as another viable alternative. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD. Per WP:ITNRD having an individual biographical article is a requirement for an RD entry. There is a note that
Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.
but there is essentially no biographical coverage about them on the linked article. Thryduulf (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC) - Support RD per Flipandflopped, oppose blurb as I don't really think they rise to the level of one - probably the most (in)famous hostages, but unfortunately three of many, and even then it doesn't quite break through the bar for I/P stories. The Kip (contribs) 04:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Frankétienne
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP News:Frankétienne, considered one of Haiti’s most important and prolific writers, dies at 88
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Jaguarnik (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ForsythiaJo (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: Haitian author and painter. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
WeaksupportArticle isn't much longer than a stub, though it is fully cited including the "Selected works" section, which is remarkable. The Kip (contribs) 18:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Article has been expanded and formatted a solid bit, changing to a normal support. The Kip (contribs) 04:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support - seconding The Kip on this one ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 21:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support It looks like the article has been expanded upon significantly in the past few hours. Looks great! NewishIdeas (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
2025 4 Nations Face-Off
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: In ice hockey, the Canadian men's team defeats the United states' in the 4 Nations Face-Off final amidst heightened tensions between the two countries. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
- At minimum, oppose on quality, no game summaries or the like are absent. --Masem (t) 17:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Though I did watch the final of this event, it was basically a replacement for the NHL All Star Game, which divided players into home countries. From the target article
the tournament was primarily an NHL-only event, having no affiliation with the worldwide International Ice Hockey Federation.
Not significant enough to be posted at ITN, in comparison to other sports events. Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC) - Oppose Even as a huge hockey fan and frequent WP:NHL contributor - it was a limited-participation tournament done under the NHL's watch rather than the IIHF as a replacement for the All-Star Game. Doesn't quite meet the bar for ITN. The Kip (contribs) 18:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This was a fun few games but it was the NHL messing around with their All-Star format, not an officially sanctioned international tournament. Modest Genius talk 18:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - as a Canadian - we have to be kidding. I don't see ITNs for various Persian Gulf four-team tournies. Maybe if it becomes a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Uneventful event for an uneventful year. ArionStar (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Heh. While not a championship (what is this even? A Nic Cage ripoff?), this had more Wikipedia page views than a proper rugby championship involving "six" (actually four, but they'd correct you on that) nations could ever dream of. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: David Boren
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP News
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:99BF:AE1B:130C:232D (talk · give credit)
- Updated by CoreyShirey1995 (talk · give credit), TulsaPoliticsFan (talk · give credit) and Fakescientist8000 (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: Former governor of Oklahoma. 240F:7A:6253:1:99BF:AE1B:130C:232D (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Well written article with only one citation needed tag. NewishIdeas (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- All CN tags have been removed, and I have taken some time to change up some of the grammar/punctuation issues in the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Topological qubits
[edit]Blurb: Microsoft researchers claim to have created topological qubits using Majorana quasiparticles. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Microsoft announces Majorana 1 – a quantum computer chip which uses Majorana quasiparticles as topological qubits.
News source(s): Nature report, Nature paper, New York Times, FT, South China Morning Post, Ars Technica
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Editor8778 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Countercheck (talk · give credit), Lfstevens (talk · give credit), Disclaimer777cc (talk · give credit) and Meelo Mooses (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is cutting-edge work and so not certain but the primary source is a peer-reviewed paper in Nature. My start point was a front page report in the NYT which talked about "another phase of matter" but didn't explain it well. I wanted to find out more and so I suppose many readers will likewise come to Wikipedia for more details. ITN can help them find relevant articles. I have suggested a blurb which links to two of them but maybe there's more.
The practical significance of this development is that it may facilitate the construction of quantum computers which are currently held back by the instability of their quantum bits (qubits). This approach promises to be more stable. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Question: Did they create the computer, or are they claiming to have made it? If the latter, I suppose we'll have to wait a bit. MT(710) 09:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- The claim is for a novel architecture in which they "implement a single-shot interferometric measurement of fermion parity, in indium arsenide–aluminium heterostructures with a gate-defined superconducting nanowire". So, this is an enabling technology or technique in this developing field. Lots more work would be needed before you can buy a device yourself.
- The role of Wikipedia here is not to say whether or not this is a solid result and how soon it will get to market. What we have are lots of good background articles such as Ettore Majorana, whose name appears in this context. He's a little-known genius who seems to have discovered the neutron before Chadwick and mysteriously disappeared. I'd not heard of him before and this is a good opportunity to help readers find out more so that they better understand the news reports.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- In other words, absolutely nothing to do with ITN. Try DYK. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on significance. Unfortunately, I will have to oppose the boldlinking of Topological quantum computer due to the uncited paragraphs. The other concern is whether they actually did what they claim to have done, but it seems that news sources are accepting their claim at face value and I think a large company like Microsoft has less incentive to lie about discoveries like this than most researchers. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that's the best target for bolding as a number of related articles have started spiking on the news. Perhaps we should go with Majorana 1 which is a new article and every paragraph in that has at least one source. That article seems reasonably NPOV and balanced too in that it presents sceptical views as well as the claims and details. I've added an ALT for that. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Now that I've read the discussion below, it looks like the evidence for their claims is not as strong as I thought. I will switch my !vote to Wait until better evidence is presented, then support. Toadspike [Talk] 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Of course Microsoft is highly incentivized to lie: patents. Either to get some now, thanks to the brainless rubber-stamping US PTO, or to protect themselves against better-evidenced patents from everyone else when it all becomes real. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Now that I've read the discussion below, it looks like the evidence for their claims is not as strong as I thought. I will switch my !vote to Wait until better evidence is presented, then support. Toadspike [Talk] 08:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not certain that's the best target for bolding as a number of related articles have started spiking on the news. Perhaps we should go with Majorana 1 which is a new article and every paragraph in that has at least one source. That article seems reasonably NPOV and balanced too in that it presents sceptical views as well as the claims and details. I've added an ALT for that. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait: The similar Microsoft announcement four years ago was retracted [1]. 128.91.201.203 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- That retraction in 2021 was for a paper in 2018 and we're not going to keep this discussion open for three years. Presumably, they and the peer-reviewers are aware of the issue now and think they've cracked it. Whether they have or haven't, it's still in the news and readers want to know more.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- The 2018 paper was heavily criticized at the time by unimpressed outsiders, just like the current one. Readers aren't the only ones who want to know more: so do other researchers, and Microsoft isn't being helpful. The new paper itself is cautious about making any actual Majorana quasiparticle claims. At the moment, no one can tell if it's real or fluff, so really, it's little more than a hardball press release with Nature conniving. The scientific version of clickbait. In other words, Wait the three years or more if necessary. 128.91.201.203 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Microsoft announced results in their press conference that do not correspond with the contents of the paper. Nature themselves published an accompanying news report that pours cold water on the claims [2] and emphasises that they're not in the paper. I have a CoI here so won't !vote, but it seems there's a lot of salesmanship going on without supporting evidence. We usually require science stories to be supported by peer-reviewed publication. Modest Genius talk 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- In an extraordinary step, I notice that the journal has added a disclaimer in the 'peer review file': "The editorial team wishes to point out that the results in this manuscript do not represent evidence for the presence of Majorana zero modes in the reported devices." I've never before seen a paper that had such an editorial disclaimer. Modest Genius talk 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose based on MG's observations that this is not backed by peer review, and reads more like PROMO when taking that into account. Masem (t) 15:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Nature paper was explicitly peer-reviewed:
"Peer review information: Nature thanks Hao Zhang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available."
- Andrew🐉(talk) 15:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it was, but that paper does not report any topological qubits. Modest Genius talk 15:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that that is confusing and unsatisfactory but that's where I came in – I read the report on the front page of the NYT and didn't understand what they were saying. You may know all about this already but we're here for the lay readers who are reading the news, not for the experts and professionals. By saying nothing, we're not helping to clarify what's going on. Running the bottom bus plunge blurb for another day doesn't seem so helpful or interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- By saying nothing, we are in fact clarifying what's going on: nothing. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Expert opinions seem to differ on that. Per the Nature report, "“Would I bet my life that they’re seeing what they think they’re seeing? No, but it looks pretty good,” says Steven Simon, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, who was briefed on the results." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Which is a scientific way of saying "nothing". A lot more needs to be done before any Majorana claims can be taken seriously. Meanwhile, excited cheering from one of the sidelines is going to happen. But if you put on some noise-cancelling headphones, you'll hear the "nothing". 128.91.40.237 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Expert opinions seem to differ on that. Per the Nature report, "“Would I bet my life that they’re seeing what they think they’re seeing? No, but it looks pretty good,” says Steven Simon, a theoretical physicist at the University of Oxford, UK, who was briefed on the results." Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- While we should write at a lay person level, writing towards requires actual knowledge about a complicated topic which the NYTimes or most other mainstream news isn't going to cover it at that level. Masem (t) 18:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note that when it comes to breaking scientific news, the NYT has long been a sad case with random accuracy and little real information. Within physics, all big announcements regarding string theory, fusion energy, and quantum computation are to be treated with extreme skepticism, but since it's clickbait, the NYT passes along the more spinnable hype without shame. Let's just say that the NYT has done an overcompensating 180 from its glory days of laughing at rockets in space, since they can't push against vacuum. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- By saying nothing, we are in fact clarifying what's going on: nothing. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that that is confusing and unsatisfactory but that's where I came in – I read the report on the front page of the NYT and didn't understand what they were saying. You may know all about this already but we're here for the lay readers who are reading the news, not for the experts and professionals. By saying nothing, we're not helping to clarify what's going on. Running the bottom bus plunge blurb for another day doesn't seem so helpful or interesting. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it was, but that paper does not report any topological qubits. Modest Genius talk 15:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Nature paper was explicitly peer-reviewed:
- Wait per 128.91.201.203. — EF5 15:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait. I disagree with Andrew's need to "rush" to get this posted, especially if the actual results are unclear. Wikipedia does not need to "break news" and we especially do not want to have the wrong breaking news. Natg 19 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- See ITN's primary purpose, "
To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
" I know that readers are searching for this because the stats show it and I did so myself. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)- There are four purposes for ITN that work in balance. Masem (t) 19:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- We're not a hype machine. Secretlondon (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- See ITN's primary purpose, "
- Support on account of this being a major advancement in quantum computing, but I would prefer Waiting until the results are clearer first. --SpectralIon 17:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, as un-newsworthy as the endless parade of "the tokamak put out more energy this time, we swear!" press releases. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, needs more scrutiny , and the blurb itself should probably include some (slightly) more layman's terms. I mean, I dunno what a topological qubit is or why it matters, but if you told me Microsoft claims they can permanently store quantum information in a solid state now, then okay that's really cool 675930s (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait. Grok is not convinced:
- "....As of February 20, 2025, Microsoft’s claims are holding up in the sense that their physics looks solid—better than 2018—and they’ve built something tangible. The Nature data is a step forward, and their engineering focus suggests intent to deliver. But “holding up” doesn’t mean proven beyond doubt. They’ve shown a qubit, not a computer. The leap to millions of qubits hinges on untested scaling and error rates they haven’t fully disclosed. The scientific community’s cautiously optimistic but wants more: entanglement demos, error-rate benchmarks, and independent verification.
- So, are they holding up? Tentatively, yes—for now. The foundation’s there, but it’s a house of cards until they show it works at scale. The next few years—two-qubit entanglement, eight-qubit error correction—will tell if this is a breakthrough or another overreach." Lfstevens (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Are you referring to Grok (chatbot)? I really hope you aren't asking a chatbot to assess scientific news, let alone ITN nominations. Use of LLMs on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged - it's best to avoid them completely. Modest Genius talk 13:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait. Whether this is a significant technological step forward (which we should definitely post), just marketing hype (which we should definitely not post) or something in between is unclear and the consensus of expert opinion seems to be that it is unclear. Which it is might be resolvable soon (e.g. if more data is released), or it might take a few years. Regardless, we should not be posting it before the significance is clear. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait since the consensus is that what's going on here isn't fully clear 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs)
- Oppose it's not clear what we would "wait" for; this is going to remain "dubious hype" for the next week. 217.180.228.171 (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait per above, particularly Modest Genius and Thryduulf. The Kip (contribs) 18:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait: Majorana 1 is a new chip announced by Microsoft so we should wait for new information. Also, as per above discussion. --AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
February 19
[edit]
February 19, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Mike Lange
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL.com
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:99BF:AE1B:130C:232D (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Red0ctober22 (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: Sportscaster for the Pittsburgh Penguins. 240F:7A:6253:1:99BF:AE1B:130C:232D (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the Expressions section is orange tagged and entirely unsourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 02:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Milind Rege
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [3]
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (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: Decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Long enough with 340 words of prose. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Formatting looks fine. Earwig has found no issues. This wikibio is READY for RD. --PFHLai (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Joe Haines (journalist)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (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: Good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready. Section about his work with Harold Wilson resembles more a magazine than an encyclopedia. A lot of "Haines said", "Haines recalled". Lova Falk (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Souleymane Cissé (film director)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5] ABC News
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (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: Needs work. Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb as landmark film director. 2A02:8071:78E1:A100:2CC3:5752:E2B0:EDEA (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready with uncited paragraphs and filmography. Oppose blurb too. MT(710) 12:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Filmography has remained unsourced. Some paragraphs have zero footnotes. Some paragraphs have footnotes in the middle, making readers wonder if the rest of the paragraph (after the footnotes) can be reliably sourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Snowy Fleet
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (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: Needs work. Natg 19 (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Some uncited statements in the article + unreliable sources exist (i.e. Discogs). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Glenn Knight
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (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: Looks in good shape. Natg 19 (talk) 06:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support: GA, good to go. MT(710) 12:46, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - looks good ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support and marking as ready. Article quality is good to go. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
February 18
[edit]
February 18, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Dickson Despommier
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American academic, microbiologist and ecologist. Developed the modern idea of Vertical farming. Obit published 18 February. Thriley (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Could use more REFs in Dickson Despommier#Research, please? --PFHLai (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Discovery of King Thutmose II's tomb
[edit]Blurb: Archaeologists confirm the discovery of the King Thutmose II's (relief pictured) tomb, the first royal Egyptian tomb to be discovered since Tutankhamun's in 1922. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Archaeologists confirm that tomb Wadi C-4 (relief pictured) was originally a tomb for Thutmose II, the first royal tomb to be discovered in Egypt since Tutankhamun's in 1922.
Alternative blurb II: Archaeologists announce that the empty tomb Wadi C-4 (relief pictured) was that of the pharaoh Thutmose II.
News source(s): CBS News, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle, but two things concern me: one, the target article has nothing about this discovery at all. Related, we usually like to see the published peer-review journal that affirms the findings, and while this is not to say that the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism & Antiquities is not reliable here, I can't seem to find any academic source that can be used to build out the discovery aspect of the tomb to a degree beyond the simple news coverage gives. Masem (t) 05:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability, oppose on quality per Masem. Seems like a fairly major development, but oddly the coverage in RS is all fairly surface-level. Hopefully some more detailed coverage in RS emerges and is added to the article soon. FlipandFlopped ツ 05:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle. This is excellent news of high encyclopaedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle Egyptian antiquities authority is a reliable enough source. Substantial advancement in Egyptology. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability but the article has room for improvement. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, while yes, in the scale of things this is a rather important discovery, it's not very notable in the context provided by ArionStar's comment, as the time for this discovery has come and gone, especially considering we've had so much stuff in the news lately. Kingofmapps (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Quick skim over the main target article (that of the tomb) reveals it to be postable. Certainly notable. Bremps... 23:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support yippie! something that isn't political results or a tragedy in ITN! Article looks fine quality wise. Scuba 05:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

- Comment The article tells us that the mummy of Thutmose II (right) was found long ago in 1881. The new discovery is claimed to have been the original tomb. It appears that the mummy was moved because of raiders and so this tomb has been plundered and doesn't contain artifacts comparable with those of Tutankhamun. So there doesn't seem to be much to show. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Articles changed. ArionStar (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Needs improvement Something of this magnitude having only three citations is... a shock. Yo.dazo (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support On the condition that the main hook is changed to Thutmose himself, that article suffices and is good enough for the main page rather than this newly minted article about the tomb. Important archaeological discovery. Gotitbro (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also, while waiting for journal coverage would be the better option. There is no guarantee of news coverage when that comes about and Egyptian Antiquities is pretty much confirmation especially on an uncontested topic. Gotitbro (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on fundamentals. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability as it's a major achievement in archeology, given it's the first Egyptian royal tomb discovered in a century. Weak oppose on quality, however, as the article feels undercited and underdeveloped for such a discovery. The Kip (contribs) 18:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability per above, but oppose on quality. MT(710) 18:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support to have some positive news. The link should point to the article on Thutmose II which is bigger and better written than the one on his tomb which is much smaller. I can't be bothered to put in effort to expand the tomb article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Harizotoh9, can the tomb article be merged into the thutmose article? — Masem (t) 23:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- See, the thing is I'm not even sure that we NEED a specific article for the tomb as of now and it may have been made pre-maturely. So I'm leaning towards that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Harizotoh9, can the tomb article be merged into the thutmose article? — Masem (t) 23:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- 𓋴𓅲𓊪𓊪𓂋𓏏 on notability It's great to see something other than politics and accidents being posted on ITN it means support The AP (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. This is an interesting discovery, but it's nowhere near as dramatic as the blurb makes it sound. This tomb was empty and the article explains that it's only the first since 2014, not 1922. The proposed blurbs are therefore incorrect, and Thutmose's is orange tagged. I've added alt2. Modest Genius talk 14:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability per above. I support Altblurb 1. I actually oppose both other blurbs, as the original blurb is technically inaccurate and Altblurb 2 makes this sound extremely underwhelming. --SpectralIon 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 22:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Bolsonaro indicted
[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: Jair Bolsonaro (pictured), the former president of Brazil, and 33 others are indicted in connection with the 2022 Brazilian coup plot. (Post)
News source(s): Folha de S.Paulo
Credits:
- Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)
- Speedy close. There's not even an article to judge (LOL). Howard the Duck (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy close per Howard the Duck. The bolded article is actually in draftspace as we speak. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Speedy close per above; why are we nominating articles that haven't even been created yet? RachelTensions (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait. No need to close the nom. We do not need an article on the event in question to post a nom (provisional target could be Bolsonaro). There will be an article in due time though, and if not, we could always retarget. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait He was not arrested yet. ArionStar (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Regardless of the lack of article, being indicted is nothing. Anyone can accuse anyone for whatever reason, and this doesn't necessarily end in a trial. The real news is when there is a trial that ends with a sentence about this. Cambalachero (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Marian Turski
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://polin.pl/en/marian-turski-co-founder-and-friend-polin-museum-has-passed-away
Credits:
- Nominated by EUPBR (talk · give credit)
- Updated by PavKls (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.
EUPBR (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article has decent quality and is thoroughly sourced. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - His daughter being a flautist is the only thing that isn't sourced, but I won't let that hold up this posting ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 20:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed! 83.9.161.104 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thought that one would be tough to source. Thanks! ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 23:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed! 83.9.161.104 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 04:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gerard Ridsdale
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/18/gerald-ridsdale-australias-most-notorious-pedophile-priest-dies-in-jail-ntwnfb
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: Australia’s most notorious paedophile priest, died in jail. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Article is thoroughly sourced. Jusdafax (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Article offers a lot of detail about his crimes over decades (and subsequent investigations and inquiries) with citations throughout. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support - well cited ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support B class article. Grimes2 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support. No issues found. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 14:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article's quality, sourcing, and length are all good. Rest in hell. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support High-quality article. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 02:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Egyptian Military Buildup
[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: Amid regional tensions, Israel’s ambassador to the United States acknowledges the buildup of Egyptian military forces in the Sinai Peninsula for the first time. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Israeli officials acknowledge an Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula for the first time amidst rising tensions.
News source(s): https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-842533
Credits:
- Nominated by iiSmxyzXX (talk · give credit)
- Oppose since this isn't mentioned in the article linked. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, the article hasn’t been updated since the start of year, and is missing a lot of information surrounding the war. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 10:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is my first time replying to ITN post, but I do think that it is not yet warrant a global attention yet, especially given that iirc the blubs for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is only posted when the military action begins. NotKringe (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Nothing has happened yet. If Egypt invades, then we can consider posting. Also, there is zero update in the article, which hasn't been edited in over a month. Thanks for your interest in ITN, but this is an misguided nomination. Please see WP:ITNCRIT which explains the minimum requirements for considering an item for ITN. Modest Genius talk 12:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose unless Egypt invades Israel, this is hardly notable enough for ITN. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Extremely premature nomination. The Kip (contribs) 15:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose 'for the first time' isn't in the source either. Until anything happens this is not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose A military build-up should not be blurbed, especially when Egypt is unlikely to invade Israel. Not sure what the precedent is with Russia and Ukraine but I would've been opposed to blurbing that build-up too. --SpectralIon 18:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
February 17
[edit]
February 17, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Dan Wallace
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ, Irish Examiner
Credits:
- Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (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.
Mr. Lechkar (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- With only 193 words of prose, this is too stubby to qualify. This wikibio is also lacking sourced statements in the main prose to support the date and place of birth mentioned in the infobox, and info on what he did at his various jobs in his long career. Info on his upbringing and education would be good to have, too. --PFHLai (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Itch Jones
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Credits:
- Nominated by Muboshgu (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.
– Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Head coaching record section needs a ref but otherwise meets standards for minimum depth and has references for everything else. SpencerT•C 23:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Itch Jones#Head coaching record is still unsourced. --PFHLai (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Edwin Clark
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Cable BBC (in Igbo)
Credits:
- Nominated by TNM101 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Ammarpad (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: Nigerian politician TNM101 (chat) 04:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Some CN tags still remain throughout the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- At least 3 paragraphs still require sourcing help. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Rick Buckler
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:
- Nominated by Ollieisanerd (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Fiveoclockhero (talk · give credit) and Joe Vitale 5 (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: Drummer for the Jam. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 22:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support And just who is the updater? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- An editor, active since 2009 and who updated the article. Check the article history if you do not believe me. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Minor facepalm, Fakescientist8000, per a 1982 classic :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Joke's on me... Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 19:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Minor facepalm, Fakescientist8000, per a 1982 classic :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- An editor, active since 2009 and who updated the article. Check the article history if you do not believe me. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bullet-points in Rick Buckler#Publications are orange-tagged for being unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Fixed. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Julian Holloway
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
- Nominated by Ollieisanerd (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Hidehi101574 (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 actor. Date death announced. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 22:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Where are the sources for the big tables in the Filmography section? --PFHLai (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jamie Muir
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Louder, DGMLive
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (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: Scottish percussionist, member of King Crimson. 82. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready. Orange tagged and the discography section is mainly unsourced. It will also be great to add an infobox. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 21:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- The Discography section has remained unsourced. The orange tag may be due for removal, though. @Fakescientist8000: Is the lead long enough now? --PFHLai (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PFHLai I'd say it has. I placed it there when it was a literal sentence. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hope the Discography would get sourced soon. --PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PFHLai just added some refs to the Discography section. Mind giving it a second look? Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 01:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Hope the Discography would get sourced soon. --PFHLai (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- @PFHLai I'd say it has. I placed it there when it was a literal sentence. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
RD: Francesco Rivella
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Fox News
Credits:
- Nominated by Ollieisanerd (talk · give credit)
- Created by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Fakescientist8000 (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: New article, date death announced. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready. Too short at the moment and will need some work done. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 15:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Delta flip-flop
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: A Delta Bombardier (pictured) flips on landing at Toronto. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, NYT
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by Guninvalid (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ForsythiaJo (talk · give credit) and Trinitrobrick (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Strong support. Reminds me of Air France Flight 358. 2604:7A40:2041:8900:E1C1:E814:ABF9:D3C (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Procedural close as the article is at AfD. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- That discussion has already been snow closed once and the consensus seems clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose and procedural close, as per PK3. The discussion already has been snowclosed before. I’ve voted for delete on the AfD discussion. Barely significant. 64.114 etc 00:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - At AfD and barely significant enough for ITN. EF5 23:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on significance. If we posted every aviation incident on this scale ITN would stand for "In Travel News". We're only even considering it because of systemic bias toward U.S. news. Sdkb talk 23:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- The incident happened in Canada (which has not yet been annexed). I nominated it because I just saw it on the BBC News in the UK and thought it seemed interesting. It's "in the news", you see; unlike the bus plunge which happened over a week ago and which we're only now blurbing. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Andrew, please review WP:POINT. GenevieveDEon (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose No deaths, (thankfully) minimal casualties, and runway overruns aren’t too terribly unusual - the only unique bit is the plane somehow ended up upside-down but mostly intact. The Kip (contribs) 00:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Zero deaths, minimal impact. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support own article. Article definitely needs to be cleaned up before it's fully ready but I suspect that'll continue to happen over the next several hours. Article was AfDd, but the AfD closed as SNOW a second time and there doesn't appear to be any dispute against it yet. This happened in Canada, so it's not just U.S. news. It did land upside-down, but the flight was a hull loss, most likely a total writeoff. guninvalid (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose for now On the one hand, I agree with Andrew that the nature of the accident is remarkable, and that interest/coverage will likely be amplified by the recent surge of plane crashes. Also, the rush to nominate this for AfD and then cite it being at AfD to torpedo this ITN nom, comes from a cohort of editors who are overly zealously applying WP:NOTNEWS in violation of WP:RAPID. But even still, nobody died and it's not clear to me whether or not this accident comes from a cause which will drum up even bigger coverage (example: Boeing 737 Max style design defect), or whether it was instead something more ordinary (e.g. pilot overreacts to a gust of wind). Willing to change my mind if subsequent coverage in RS continues to grow as opposed to die out. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also, for the record, I strongly oppose SNOW closing this nomination. It is far too soon to snow close this, and we should not set the precedent that prematurely nominating a recent event at AfD precludes it from ITN eligibility. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- By that, do you mean you oppose the SNOW close at the AfD? Or would you oppose a SNOW close of this ITN nomination? guninvalid (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- The latter! FlipandFlopped ツ 01:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- By that, do you mean you oppose the SNOW close at the AfD? Or would you oppose a SNOW close of this ITN nomination? guninvalid (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also, for the record, I strongly oppose SNOW closing this nomination. It is far too soon to snow close this, and we should not set the precedent that prematurely nominating a recent event at AfD precludes it from ITN eligibility. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Thankfully, there were no casualties from this accident. But still, its been an awful start for the aviation world this year. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁=☁=✈) 00:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Almost a nothing story. Perhaps vaguely related to the winter storm because of the likely wind impact, but that's it. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - no fatalities. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - a minor incident without causalties. The fact that it happened to an aeroplane in the 'global north' rather than a bus in the 'global south' doesn't make it more notable. GenevieveDEon (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per most of the above. A relatively minor accident with no fatalities. IMO the case for it meeting WP:EVENT is pretty weak. This is yet another example of the persistent problem of editors rushing to create articles the moment a news story breaks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Thankfully no fatalities and all to say, can be considered a minor aircraft incident in its context. Kingsif (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Flip and flop. Nobody died. Hooray for air safety. I doubt this is going to be more than a drop in the bucket of aviation incidents this year, albeit perhaps the most fun to laugh at due to the lack of loss of life and sheer absurdity of the incident. Like a pancake, or perhaps a $11.69 four-egg omelette.
- I might support the storm system / arctic airmass that caused this. It's pretty damn cold in the Midwest, and the coldest I can ever recall it getting after January. I know Minneapolis gets cold and that's their thing, but a chilly −45 °F (−43 °C) after wind chills in February might be a bit over the line. Departure– (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Paquita la del Barrio
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Latin Times
Credits:
- Nominated by FlyingAce (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Mexican singer. Unsourced discography, but the rest of the article appears sufficiently sourced. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - discography now mostly sourced, there are only a few entries left. –FlyingAce✈hello 01:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Updated the article with sources and new obits. There shouldn't be any unsourced statements left. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Quality is good and article is ready. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 03:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Frits Bolkestein
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Dutch news
Credits:
- Nominated by TiffanyAlThani (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: Former Dutch liberal politician and European commissioner for internal market
- Not ready. Needs attention. Several citation needed tags throughout. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Quite a few CN tags are peppered throughout the article. Please fix! Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I went through and put citations for each CN tag except for one. I couldn't find a citation for that one. I hope this resolves the issue opposing the RD proposal. ReflectorDiskJockey (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Issues seem to have been resolved, the quality looks fine to me now. Yakikaki (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and the article is ready. --CommanderShepardX (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- The sections "Honours" and "Published books" need more citations and once that's sorted, this is ready. Schwede66 03:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I have now added citations for the Published books section, and added citations as well as additional honors to the Honours section. ReflectorDiskJockey (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Thanks for your work, ReflectorDiskJockey. Please look up WP:BAREURLS, though – most of which I have fixed. Schwede66 23:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks. I didn't realize. I'll be sure to fix the rest soon. ReflectorDiskJockey (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Thanks for your work, ReflectorDiskJockey. Please look up WP:BAREURLS, though – most of which I have fixed. Schwede66 23:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Flash flooding in eastern United States
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: A storm complex in the United States causes flash flooding, claiming at least 14 lives in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Georgia. (Post)
Alternative blurb II: Flash flooding in the United States claims at least 12 lives in Kentucky with others still missing.
News source(s): CNN, NBC, New York Times
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Kentuckian (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose again, because even with 11 deaths, thousands die worldwide from seasonal flooding, this is a minor incident along those lines. --Masem (t) 18:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Did you even read the article? 13 people have died with others still missing. Not even mentioning the property damage, this was a disastrous flood. It should not take 100 people to die for something to be considered "notable". Maybe if you lived in EKY and witnessed this catastrophe first hand you’d feel different. Kentuckian |💬 18:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, it was tragic but we cannot post every tragic event that happens. For example the Taichung department store explosion is tragic, but as seen in its discussion below, people dying is not a reason to post. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- It is not the number of deaths but the fact that when seasons change or warm weather follows from heavy snowfall, there is routine flooding which routinely can bring deaths. Its less often that happens in the US but it happens frequently. --Masem (t) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't usually get this angry, but this is really making me mad seeing how ignorant some people are. First off, snow melting did not cause this, it was heavy rain. Second off. Yes, I agree, there is usually flooding that causes 1-2 deaths, but this is 13 people in three different states. And we aren't even gonna talk about the property damage. As I said, maybe if you lived in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia and seen this catastrophe first hand you would feel differently. Kentuckian |💬 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- You appear to be emotionally invested in this event and the nomination. Perhaps to the point of not being able to objectively assess notability. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog for people to share their personal traumas.--Danthemankhan 18:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't usually get this angry, but this is really making me mad seeing how ignorant some people are. First off, snow melting did not cause this, it was heavy rain. Second off. Yes, I agree, there is usually flooding that causes 1-2 deaths, but this is 13 people in three different states. And we aren't even gonna talk about the property damage. As I said, maybe if you lived in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia and seen this catastrophe first hand you would feel differently. Kentuckian |💬 18:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Did you even read the article? 13 people have died with others still missing. Not even mentioning the property damage, this was a disastrous flood. It should not take 100 people to die for something to be considered "notable". Maybe if you lived in EKY and witnessed this catastrophe first hand you’d feel different. Kentuckian |💬 18:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Still oppose per Masem. History6042😊 (Contact me) 18:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Still oppose WP:POINTy re-nomination, per Masem, and as original closer. The Kip (contribs) 18:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support event is notable and article is in good shape. 2A02:8071:78E1:A100:4DA2:B42A:700C:C2A8 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, it rained to a tragic degree, but this happens all over the place. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support on notability, weak oppose on quality. I'm tired of this "climate change is worsening, so we can't feature disasters" rhetoric at ITN, but I do agree that this is just some really bad flooding with a few tornadoes, none strong as of now. 13 deaths from a flood is semi-notable, but deaths only play an indirect part in notability. Article needs more info as well. EF5 18:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - unfortunate, but flooding events of this magnitude are quite routine in the United States. It's far from Summer 2022 levels for sure. Departure– (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Big oppose due to a re nomination of something that’s already closed. 64.114 etc 20:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability once again per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strongly opposed. As per Masem, 11-13 deaths is a minor incident compared to the thousands of people worldwide whom seasonal flooding kills. 207.194.85.134 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support — Notable enough for ITN with 13 deaths. The article is well rounded with plenty of information. The argument “Flooding happens all the time across the United States”, doesn’t really hold water. Though it is true, those are usually just minor events with 1-2 deaths, while this is a major event that has caused 13 deaths with more fatalities likely and a lot of property damage. It is definitely notable. Shlumbis11 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and Snow Close per Masem and Departure. Suggest SNOW closing this renomination, until or unless there is a more substantive change in the nature of the floods themselves. FlipandFlopped ツ 21:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Snow close Good call, F&F. 72.143.219.80 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC) •
- Support - This was not by any means minor. Minor flooding would result in some damage to buildings, and maybe some deaths. This is MAJOR, the effects of this complex have been felt all over the entire country, from an EF4 tornado in Calfornia to the flooding in Kentucky, Virginia, and Tennessee. I don’t see how this isn’t notable, and the article seems to be in good shape. Fatcheeto728 (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC) — Fatcheeto728 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Also, for the record, the tornado in California was a much more common EF1. There haven't been any EF4s in California and it'll take more than a flood event or winter storm to change that. Departure– (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I noticed how someone tagged this reply with “Fatcheeto728 has made few or no edits outside this topic”. Shouldn’t we do this to the several IP editors as well? Kentuckian |💬 22:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not from what I can tell. A lot of IP editors often have good points in other discussions, or come from an IP range despite being serial constructive contributors. Registered accounts, on the other hand, going strongly against consensus, will be put under scrutiny if this was their first edit. Departure– (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article looks well sourced and is notable as well, since it event included power outages, flash floods, snow, and even a Tornado. TheHiddenCity (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. I still do not believe this storm is terribly exceptional. Perhaps for a winter storm, but winter storms aren't generally enduring weather events when it comes down to it. There seems to be some attempt at synthesis here - no, this storm is not notable because it had some tornadoes - the last one did as well, and that one actually had a fatal tornado IIRC. Compare to the freak snowstorm across the Gulf Coast a few weeks ago. That was the more unusual and likely enduring weather event - it was evently voted down. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article looks ready to go and is of significant nature for one of the most impoverished areas of the US.CoatCheck (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
2025 Indonesian student protests
[edit]Blurb: Hundreds of students start protests against the government of Indonesia across the country. (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Wait on notability, given the protests only began today. Oppose on quality - the article in its current state completely fails to illustrate why the protests are occurring, with only a passing mention of "controversial [government] policies," and why the protests are unique/special; neither their size nor their cause appears to be overly unusual. The Kip (contribs) 18:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Statement from the page's creator: This article indeed requires many improvisation, and all editors are welcome to improve it. There might be errors since I am not an English native speaker, and I only created the page at 7 p.m. (ICT / UTC+8), when most protests were over. My decision is wait, since the protest only began this time. DDG9912 22:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose When I google "student protest", I get reports of ongoing protests in other countries including Iran, Serbia and the US but am not seeing anything about Indonesia. So the latter are not sufficiently prominent to warrant special treatment. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: That's because the protests receive relatively small attention from foreign media outlets. According to this, all of the foreign websites named for reporting the event, are relatively obscure in your country, the United Kingdom. DDG9912 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably the sources for this are in the Indonesian Malay language. But this is the English language Wikipedia. This is a significant barrier and so it seems better for the topic to be covered at the Wikipedia for that language. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just looked at that mainpage of the Indonesian Wikipedia and got it translated to English. It's interesting to see that their equivalent of ITN (Peristiwa terkini) seems to be a straight translation of the English ITN's blurbs even though the bold articles are often redlinks because they don't exist in that language. There is an article there for this topic (Unjuk rasa mahasiswa Indonesia 2025) though. I wonder to what extent that is related to the English equivalent? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson
- The Indonesian language article is mostly just a translation of the English one sadly. Please read the article again as it has been quite significantly updated from last time when it was nominated. Considering the scale alone on how many cities and universities participated, I stand that this deserves ITN the same way 2024 Indonesian local election law protests was. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Covered by many international media by now
- Reuters,SCMP,Financial Times, Nyanardsan (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- I just looked at that mainpage of the Indonesian Wikipedia and got it translated to English. It's interesting to see that their equivalent of ITN (Peristiwa terkini) seems to be a straight translation of the English ITN's blurbs even though the bold articles are often redlinks because they don't exist in that language. There is an article there for this topic (Unjuk rasa mahasiswa Indonesia 2025) though. I wonder to what extent that is related to the English equivalent? Andrew🐉(talk) 17:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Presumably the sources for this are in the Indonesian Malay language. But this is the English language Wikipedia. This is a significant barrier and so it seems better for the topic to be covered at the Wikipedia for that language. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: That's because the protests receive relatively small attention from foreign media outlets. According to this, all of the foreign websites named for reporting the event, are relatively obscure in your country, the United Kingdom. DDG9912 09:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew and my own personal google fu, I'm not quite convinced these protests warrant a blurb when there are similarly styled protests taking place across the world. Article quality needs a lot of work as well. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 18:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability per above. --SpectralIon 19:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @DDG9912@ArionStar
- If this nomination fails or not getting enough traction for now, I'm suggesting re-nominating it tomorrow (which is supposed to be the peak demonstration according to the student bodies). I do think this deserves to be ITN, mainly because of the scale that is relatively big compared to other countries mentioned by @Andrew Davidson and it called for mobilization of university students all over the country to join the protest similar to 2024 Indonesian local election law protests which if I'm remember correctly was ITN. Not to mention this is the first large-scale student protest of the Prabowo administration.
- Nyanardsan (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Renomination is not normally done. Just provide an update here, please. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Protests occur all the time all around the world; its only if those protests actually have an immediate impact, such as if they turn violent, or that they have direct impact (like the Indian farmers' one that used to block main roads). I'm not seeing this here, this is mostly a large but peaceful demonstration. Masem (t) 02:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
M23 captures Bukavu
[edit]Blurb: In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the March 23 Movement captures Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province, as part of an ongoing offensive (Post)
News source(s): Guardian BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Modest Genius (talk · give credit)
- Created by Noble Attempt (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Noble Attempt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Last month, we posted when M23 rebels captured Goma, the capital of North Kivu province. Well now they've taken Bukavu, an even larger city and the capital of South Kivu province. There was a lot less fighting this time around, but widespread looting occurred, apparently not by M23 themselves. The Congolese army retreated without contesting control of the city, and the government has admitted it has fallen. It took more than two years of fighting to capture one major city, now two have fallen in just a few weeks. The article has been updated (not by me) and is in good shape already. Modest Genius talk 14:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support on quality, the article seems well sourced. oppose on notability, this is covered by ongoing. History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Covered by the M23 ongoing, as that was added after the Goma campaign ITN posting was rolled off. --Masem (t) 14:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to post a new blurb, removing the offensive from the ongoing section for as long as the blurb remains on the template. I'm proposing an upgrade, not a duplication. Modest Genius talk 12:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral on notability (not sure if it is significant enough to be posted with the whole campaign covered by ongoing), but support on quality if there is consensus that it's notable. MT(710) 16:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose covered by ongoing. The Kip (contribs) 18:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support Although this is also covered by “Ongoing”, the size of Bukavu’s population makes this development notable enough for a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support An armed rebel group capturing a city of over 1,000,000 people from a UN-recognized state strikes me as fairly noteworthy. Although the conflict is covered by ongoing, the taking of a large city with millions of people has typically still merited its own blurb at ITN in the past, even where we have the overarching conflict covered in ongoing: see e.g. Fall of Mosul which we posted, or as the OP references, the Fall of Goma as well. I see no reason for an arbitrary deviation now. FlipandFlopped ツ 02:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Huge geopolitical change in the 13th/14th most-populous country in the world. This country has more than 109 million people. Alexysun (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The city is close to the border with Rwanda and there was no battle. The occupation therefore seems to be part of the ongoing campaign in that region rather than being a major new front. As the civil war continues, the Ongoing entry seems adequate for this. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson Is that how historically ITN does things? Alexysun (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose covered by ongoing, Goma was blurbed before ongoing was posted. --SpectralIon 19:29, 18 February 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: