Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
![]() | Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
![]() |
---|
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps[edit]
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Archives
[edit]Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives
Sections
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
April 22
[edit]
April 22, 2025
(Tuesday)
|
RD: Puan Noor Aishah
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNA
Credits:
- Nominated by Robertsky (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: Wife of the first president of Singapore – robertsky (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
April 21
[edit]
April 21, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Sports
|
(Posted) Pope Francis' death
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Pope Francis dies aged 88. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
- Nominated by Twistedaxe (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Support ITN/R nobrainer for hook. Article adequately updated. Juxlos (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no need to debate this. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support – Self-evident. Only possible caveat is cause of death probably should be included (both in article and in blurb), but otherwise ready for ITN. ArkHyena (they/any) 08:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Altblurbs are welcome, wrote my blurb in a rush. TwistedAxe [contact] 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Also nominating as the featured articles for In The News section, once the wiki is edited WadoodSultan (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support per all above. There's no argument or debate for this. ROY is WAR Talk! 08:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Head of over 1 billion faithful. Prodrummer619 (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Needs work There's a prominent cleanup tag saying that the article has an unclear citation style. That has been there since January and so some cleanup and copy-editing seems needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: The unfortunate day has come. Tofusaurus (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well written and clearly evident for blurbing. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: No debate needed. RIP. Pyramids09 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support It was more worthly deserved a separate article dedicated to death of him. RIP. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Well said by literally everyone else, no brainer AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Per above. Importance is given. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. A major religious figure and Pope for twelve years. No brainer, as what the guy above said. RealAmericanNixonite (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Death and funeral of Pope Francis now has a standalone article. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article seems well-written. As mentioned above, it has a yellow tag which should be addressed, but I do not see any talk page discussion detailing what the issue is. As long as the issue is merely grammatical and nothing is unsourced, I am fine with saying it should not hold up posting this major event to ITN. Davey2116 (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support ITNR and meets WP:ITNQUALITY (a yellow tag for citation style doesn't stop this being posted). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The head of the largest religion on the glob dying is pretty noteworthy news LukySe7en (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously support The Seal F1 (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the citation style tag is due to the three books listed at the bottom of the References section. – robertsky (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support no debate needed JustAnAlbo (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Easy support here Eddie891 Talk Work 08:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per others Centuries123 (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posting. The article is updated, the yellow tag is seen as non problematic. Since there is a separate article on death and funeral, it can be incorporated into the blurb later. Please also take care of the photo. --Tone 08:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Image
Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Image
- Support. Short and simple. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 11:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment the article on his death should be linked and probably blurbed
- Kowal2701 (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- The death article has no additional encyclopedic content to the main article (reactions lists are trivial), so doesn't meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support Obviously. ArionStar (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post posting support rest in peace Holy Father Ion.want.uu (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support God rest his soul. TenorTwelve (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Post-posting support - nobrainer for posting WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- JD Vance angle: I do not endorse the rumors exploding across the Internet that Vance somehow killed the Pope, whether due to stress or with alien nanobots or the like, but do we want to mention that death came hours after their meeting? Hyperbolick (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, blurbs are meant to be kept as simple and straightforward as possible (per ITN/A:
The aim of the blurb is to convey the most pertinent facts in as little space as possible.
). And adding Vance is unnecessary and UNDUE. Natg 19 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC) - Of course we don't put that in the headline. But lettuce reconsider it if Vance suffers the same fate as Truss. Nfitz (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No the visit is irrelevant to a death blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- She was actually Head Honcho, not just a Munchkin? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- The Pope met the Croatian PM last anyway, so I'm not sure why the second-last guy to visit him matters. Bremps... 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, no reason to implicitly make accusations. - RockinJack18 18:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not relevant compared to such a monumental death, also WP:NTRUMP and trying to keep an "encylopedic tone" Normalman101 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, blurbs are meant to be kept as simple and straightforward as possible (per ITN/A:
- Comment Death and funeral of Pope Francis is an article now. ArionStar (talk)`
(Closed) WrestleMania 41
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: In professional wrestling, John Cena (pictured) is the 17th time champion beating Ric Flair's record in WrestleMania 41. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In professional wrestling, John Cena (pictured) defeats Cody Rhodes by pinfall making 17th champion breaking Ric Flair's record in WrestleMania 41.
News source(s): Cagesideseats USA Today Wrestletalk
Credits:
- Nominated by Royiswariii (talk · give credit)
- There are two tables called "Other on-screen personnel" that are unreferenced. Could that be rectified, please? Schwede66 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66, the "Other on-screen personnel" doesn't require reference for that based on the Good Article like WrestleMania XXX. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Surprising, but I shall relax. Schwede66 06:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Just because other articles don't do things properly doesn't mean it's not necessary here. This won't get posted but needs references if it ever was going to. Stephen 07:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66, the "Other on-screen personnel" doesn't require reference for that based on the Good Article like WrestleMania XXX. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Pro Wrestling is well known to be staged, so I don't know why we'd be playing along with this and saying this or that person "won" anything. It's more like the outcome of a play than a real competition. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on significance per Harizotoh, since it's a staged event not a sporting event where the result was in doubt. Also oppose on quality per the unreferenced tables mentioned by Schwede. — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The most significant real-world aspect of this seems to be that, for the first time, the event was live-streamed on Netflix at no extra charge for international audiences. See the BBC preview for good detail on the media business implications. Our article says a bit about this but doesn't, for example, say anything about the excessive number of adverts, as the BBC report does. So, it probably won't be posted but that leaves ITN just running a college basketball item from two weeks ago, as if nothing else significant is happening in the US. It's not a good look either way. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is not an athletic competition, but a scripted performance. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose As much of a fan of pro wrestling as I am, it’s a scripted show - it’d be akin to posting a reality show’s final to ITN. The Kip (contribs) 16:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
April 20
[edit]
April 20, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Sports
|
Hugo Calderano wins table tennis title
[edit]Blurb: In table tennis, Brazilian player Hugo Calderano (pictured) wins the Table Tennis World Cup men's singles, becoming the first athlete from the Americas to win the competition. (Post)
News source(s): ITTF
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Unprecedented title, "breaking the Chinese dominance". Article in good conditions. ArionStar (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Please provide references for the section "Clubs". Schwede66 01:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment isn't it more usual on ITN to blurb the event, not the winner? Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- And as this was a mixed event, that means the women's winner should also be posted. Which further leads me to question if this event is actually in the news, as the source above is the website of the organization that runs the even, not an independent source. Masem (t) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite easy to search using Google News. My impression is that this mainly covered in Brazilian/Chinese news so sites like Xinhua, South China Morning Post and TV BRICS have it on their English language pages. This indicates that there's considerable systemic bias here. Table tennis is quite a well-known sport but, because it's dominated by non-Anglo nations, it's not in ITN/R. China especially dominates the sport but ITN rarely covers Chinese news. Perhaps the ongoing world events will change this... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well there's also the fact the yearly event is hit or miss if there is an article about it, much less one of quality. I did look to see if we have table tennis as an ITNR as it would make sense, but clearly we haven't had anyone sufficiently vested in trying to bring the annual event up to speed. Masem (t) 14:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's quite easy to search using Google News. My impression is that this mainly covered in Brazilian/Chinese news so sites like Xinhua, South China Morning Post and TV BRICS have it on their English language pages. This indicates that there's considerable systemic bias here. Table tennis is quite a well-known sport but, because it's dominated by non-Anglo nations, it's not in ITN/R. China especially dominates the sport but ITN rarely covers Chinese news. Perhaps the ongoing world events will change this... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- And as this was a mixed event, that means the women's winner should also be posted. Which further leads me to question if this event is actually in the news, as the source above is the website of the organization that runs the even, not an independent source. Masem (t) 12:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
April 19
[edit]
April 19, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
|
(Closed) Supreme Court order on deportations
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: The United States Supreme Court blocks the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan men under the Alien Enemies Act in a 1:00 a.m. order. (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:
- Created and nominated by voorts (talk · give credit)
- Oppose - It doesn't seem worthy of being ITN candidate because its just a case. Also Trump deported many more migrants already and so this group of migrants being blocked doesn't really make anything radical or new. DotesConks (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- This
just a case
has attained significant worldwide media coverage and commentary because of the unusual nature of the order. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- This
- Oppose - As long as I have been alive, the United States has been one of several countries with a reputation for deporting people for any reason or no reason at all. I see no change in that long-standing policy under the Trump administration, and this judicial ruling falls a long way short of any change. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Why does it need to change policy to be enough for ITN? The media and commenters have been describing this as a significant separation of powers confrontation that represents a significant rebuke to Trump's AEA invocation from the Court. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is part of a far larger story related to the possible constitutional crisis on how the Trump admin has been handling deportations and its disregards for the courts, though we're still not yet at a point that it has tipped beyond a threshold. That larger story is most likely what will be what is more appropriate for ITN to post than one of multiple court orders that have been placed about this. Masem (t) 20:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have crystal balls and what may or may not happen should not play a role in determination. Focusing on the merits of the story is what alone should be determined rather than our own speculation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that this specific story is an element of a much larger story. This element alone is not worth posting to ITN (neither a news nor a trump ticker), but the larger story, if it develops in a way many journalists, legal scholars, and others are concerned with, would likely be one of those things we should post, just like with the tariffs. Its also possible this whole situation may resolve without any issues (in which case we'd not post). We're not blind to what's happening in the US Govt and know its making news but we should wait for something that is really significant to happen, representing a point of no return or similar line, to be what we post to ITN, not just a solitary development that gets wide coverage. Masem (t) 21:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have crystal balls and what may or may not happen should not play a role in determination. Focusing on the merits of the story is what alone should be determined rather than our own speculation. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: just internal US politics Cambalachero (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wait: since it's just an injunction and the case is still pending. The actual case is more news worthy. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose USA’s checks and balances system doing its job. Not enough notable for ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is just a preliminary injunction and the case is still pending. Natg 19 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NTRUMP and the fact that this particular legal wrangle is just starting with no evidence so far showing this is in any way any more significant than all the other recent legal and political turmoil in the US. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Standard national court process, nothing noteworthy on an international stage. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 10:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: George McMillan (politician)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AL.com
Credits:
- Nominated by Yoblyblob (talk · give credit)
- Updated by History6042 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Article has some length, could be a little longer but no citation issues. Former Lt. Gov of Alabama Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
OpposeSupport, it is long enough after my expansions. History6042😊 (Contact me) 00:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if it's not a stub any longer, you should remove the stub tag, MtPenguinMonster. However, that looks like a stub to me! Schwede66 01:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN now. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Still far too thin. Is it really being suggested this is the sort of article which deserves to be highlighted on the front page? 3142 (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is a nomination page; it is to be expected that a number of the candidates are not up to snuff just yet. This article isn't too far off from posting: a solid paragraph on his legislative career and another on his tenure as lieutenant governor (and maybe a bit of his post-political career, if known) should be sufficient. Curbon7 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Russo-Ukraine ceasefire
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Russia announces a ceasefire with Ukraine in prison exchange deal. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-putin-declares-unilateral-easter-ceasefire-ukraine-2025-04-19/
Credits:
- Nominated by DotesConks (talk · give credit)
- Oppose According to the cited source it's meant to last only for this weekend, Ukraine has already rejected it, and Russia had made similar unilateral ceasefire declarations for this conflict in the past. While a well-intentioned nomination, it's clear that this ceasefire declaration won't have much long-term ramifications. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 16:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Patagonia. — EF5 17:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Mount Patagonia I admit that I made this nomination just by looking at the headlines, but given Trump's pressure on Russia I really thought it would be a ceasefire. Just another case of "OMG LOOK HERE" DotesConks (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per Mount Patagonia. Departure– (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
April 18
[edit]
April 18, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
|
RD: Stina Oscarson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Solid article. No issues. Grimes2 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Does reference #2 confirm her date of birth? Reference #1 has the year only. Schwede66 01:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes it confirms her birthdate.BabbaQ (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Does reference #2 confirm her date of birth? Reference #1 has the year only. Schwede66 01:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Clodagh Rodgers
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTÉ, Irish Times
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:65E2:9D15:F64E:9D6 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ErktheBerserker (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Northern Irish singer who represented the United Kingdom at the Eurovision Song Contest. 240F:7A:6253:1:65E2:9D15:F64E:9D6 (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support A distinctive and famous name which will work well in RD. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - needs plenty of additional sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Nikola Pokrivač
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, Croatia Week
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:C99E:58BC:C5A1:6E9C (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Croatian international professional footballer. 240F:7A:6253:1:C99E:58BC:C5A1:6E9C (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jennifer Toth
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by CAWylie (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American journalist. Death reported 18 April. Thriley (talk) 03:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
April 17
[edit]
April 17, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Peter Ablinger
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): nmz
Credits:
- Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by Dr. Blofeld (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kelisi (talk · give credit), Grimes2 (talk · give credit) and Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Austrian composer who settled in Berlin and became a leader in experimental music running an ensemble, a publishing house, festivals, and teaching internationally. Good new refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Joseph Thompson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Abcmaxx (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well cited article. Prodrummer619 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Well-done article. Sad tale. Kicking222 (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: consensus seems to be that this can be posted now. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Could someone please provide a source for the date of birth that works, please? Or an archive URL? Schwede66 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Found dob in Rochdale Times. I hope, that's ok. Grimes2 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 01:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Found dob in Rochdale Times. I hope, that's ok. Grimes2 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
- Could someone please provide a source for the date of birth that works, please? Or an archive URL? Schwede66 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Fatma Hassona
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Euro News
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Οἶδα (talk · give credit) and Afonso Dimas Martins (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Palestinian photojournalist. The subject of the upcoming film Put Your Soul on Your Hand and Walk. Thriley (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Too stuby.Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)- Looks fine now. Support. Gotitbro (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is a stub. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - on the shorter side. But start class now. Sourced.BabbaQ (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose More information needed in the article. Currently too stubby. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support, well sourced, long enough for a RD. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support looks long enough now Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unreferenced DoB. Schwede66 01:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Satisfactory length and quality. RIP. Bremps... 19:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) K2-18b likely teeming with microbial life
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Spectroscopic signatures of dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide detected on the exoplanet K2-18b by the James Webb Space Telescope can with current scientific knowledge, only be explained by the presence of microbial life (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Astrophyshical Journal Letters (peer review source)
Credits:
- Nominated by Count Iblis (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Needs work The discovery is interesting and in the news but life is not the only explanation on offer. The BBC source says, "Other research groups have put forward alternative, lifeless, explanations for the data obtained from K2-18b ... which highlights the strong scientific debate surrounding K2-18b." This is science in action, testing hypotheses against the data and continuing to refine the results. So, the blurb needs to convey the current state of the debate rather than presenting one side uncritically. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The phrase "only be explained by the presence of microbial life" is contradicted within the article per: "planetary scientist Sarah Hörst pointed to lab experiments that show DMS can be produced without life." While it deepens our understanding of this exoplanet and interesting in a vacuum, I feel like it's premature to say whether it is caused by microbial life or not. The uncertainties make me question whether it would be blurb-worthy, even NASA is cautious regarding the matter. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Professional astronomer here. This team has claimed the same result before, which was widely criticised by other astronomers. The detection was discredited and the interpretation as a biosignature was disputed by most researchers working in the field. Now the team is claiming to detect the same molecule by a different method, which is useful, but it's still a marginal detection and the interpretation is still flawed. There is no evidence that this is related to life - DMS can be produced by abiotic processes. The press release and resulting coverage are ridiculously overblown. Modest Genius talk 10:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose an abundance of caution is needed here - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that - and there have been similar claims in the past. I'm reminded most directly of those claims of Venusian bio signatures of a few years ago, now generally regarded as debunked. Slightly more generally we posted the "discovery" of planet nine perhaps a decade ago, which looks a little premature with hindsight as it has still not been found. 3142 (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The peer reviewed paper lists both of these as "possible biosignature" but as others have pointed out there's non-biological sources for these too and the paper doesn't go anywhere as far to claim life. Finding these traces are not uncommon from what I understand so this is not as much of a breakthrough as suggested by blurb. Even the BBC article keeps far low key as to the significance here. Masem (t) 12:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A very poor and clearly unscientific nomination: life likely isn't the explanation; the highly speculative superhabitable world is presented as fact, the rest of the nominating comment is just as bit imaginative and fabulous. With this and the "dire wolf" nomination, makes one wonder what has happened to science communication. Gotitbro (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per all opposes above me Shaneapickle (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, this doesn't mean that there's life there, and we should wait the 1-2 years for confirmation if there's life. Per many above, this does not indicate life and researchers have been skeptical about this. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 13:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe sorta possibly a finding that may turn out to be something isn't breaking news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Expo 2025
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: Expo 2025 is opened in Osaka, Japan. (Post)
News source(s): Yahoo
Credits:
- Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Needs work The lead still uses the future tense – "will be held" – and does not provide an adequate summary of the rest of the article. The Guardian reports that "The pavilions – and Fujimoto’s “sustainable” edifice – will be dismantled later this year to make way for Japan’s first casino." but the article does not include this discouraging fact. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ITNR I'm not seeing anything on the ITNR list to suggest this trade show, much less any trade show, is ITNR. Masem (t) 12:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- World's fair (aka Expo <year>) was on ITNR for many years, but was removed in 2021. Modest Genius talk 13:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a bi-annual event that happens every 2 years and plus I am opposing this per @Masem this also falls under WP:NOTNEWS Shaneapickle (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The main world's fair is once per 5 years but world's fairs aren't as big as they used to be (first one (1851 World's Fair) to at least 1964-5 inclusive) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- There was Expo 2023 in Argentina and there is scheduled to be an Expo 2027 in Belgrade, Serbia. It seems de facto biannual to me. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- World's fair#Types says the ones between the 5 year ones have scale/cost restrictions like 25 hectares+0.1 hectares per country. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- There was Expo 2023 in Argentina and there is scheduled to be an Expo 2027 in Belgrade, Serbia. It seems de facto biannual to me. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The main world's fair is once per 5 years but world's fairs aren't as big as they used to be (first one (1851 World's Fair) to at least 1964-5 inclusive) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. Not seeing much front-page or in-depth coverage in the most prominent sources, which implies to me that it is a relatively standard biannual event with little enduring notability or impact. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a routine event with little coverage and no major announcements or distinctions. The article is all minor details, with no obvious impact. I can't see anything special about it that might merit posting on ITN. Modest Genius talk 19:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above; the claim that this is part of a coherent series going back to the 1851 Great Exhibition seems ahistorical to me. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's what the Bureau International des Expositions says. They just lost importance over time. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how an organisation founded in 1928, with no predecessor founded earlier than 1902, can say definitively that an event in 1851 was part of the series it oversees. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't see how this is news. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
April 16
[edit]
April 16, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Francis Davis
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
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 jazz critic. Death reported 16 April. Thriley (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article's quality and sourcing look good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- The short list of bullet-points after the prose is largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Aaron Boupendza
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News, CBS Sports
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:C153:5B:90E6:3807 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Narcis90 (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 member of the Gabon national football team. 240F:7A:6253:1:C153:5B:90E6:3807 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Boupendza was a notable footballer and was one of the best Gabonese footballers when he was alive.
- Djprasadian (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- "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." Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article's quality is good enough for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Any prose on his career after signing with Rapid București? He signed for two years, but the stats table after the prose indicates that he left after only 9 games in Romania and played in China instead. What happened? Please complete the coverage of his sports career in this wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi User:PFHLai, while I haven't looked into this specific case, it's very common for footballers to move to another team without completing a contract. This is why clubs pay transfer fees, as compensation. The second most likely event is "mutual agreement" to end a contract: the club removes the white elephant of paying wages to a player who isn't playing, and the player becomes free to move to pastures new. This is the kind of page I'd usually jump into but I'm without PC for referencing right now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this, @Unknown Temptation. The coverage cannot just abruptly end with him signing a contract, with the stats table indicating that he played after signing, and then moved elsewhere and played more. This nom is not expiring yet. There is still lots of time (a few days!) to add prose to the wikibio before this nom scrolls off this page. No rush. --PFHLai (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Hi User:PFHLai, while I haven't looked into this specific case, it's very common for footballers to move to another team without completing a contract. This is why clubs pay transfer fees, as compensation. The second most likely event is "mutual agreement" to end a contract: the club removes the white elephant of paying wages to a player who isn't playing, and the player becomes free to move to pastures new. This is the kind of page I'd usually jump into but I'm without PC for referencing right now. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) UK Supreme Court Ruling
[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 the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court rules that within the Equality Act 2010, sex is biological. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The UK Supreme Court rules that within the Equality Act 2010, the terms "man", "woman", and "sex" refer to biological sex.
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)
- Needs work This seems quite a significant precedent but some work is needed. In particular, the context for this is the UK's Equality Act 2010 and the blurb should specify this. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Blurb amended per your suggestion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as more complicated than a blurb can adequately cover. nableezy - 22:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose only applies to specific parts (differential between "sex" and "gender") of a single UK-only law (the Equality Act). Transgender people possessing a gender recognition certificate are still legally recognised as such in the UK. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure about that. I've read some sources stating that the certificates are now invalid within the framework of that particular law. I suspect that this is going to create a lot of fallout and will take time to sort out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The UK minister this morning said clearly "Rights remain enshrined in the Equality Act. There are protected characteristics for trans people under the gender recognition part of the Equality Act" and the ECHR appears to agree with that. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Seems significant to me. However, article is still a stub and needs to be improved before it can be posted. Natg 19 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The impact of this ruling is being laughably overplayed by both sides. In truth, the announced cuts to disability/sickness benefits in the UK are going to be far more impactful than this.2A00:23C7:4F92:4E01:58BD:287E:5BBE:BAB2 (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Wasn't there a similar case in Australia recently that reached the opposite conclusion? Which countries ruling on sex and gender meet ITN criteria, and which don't, given as they're all internal issues? From the little I've read, it appears that transgender people retain legal protections against harassment, violence, etc apart from the definition of a woman. Agree with above that activists on both sides are sensationalising this case. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The anti-trans assault under Trump 2.0 and the ever-expanding 2020s anti-LGBTQ movement in the United States appear much more important than this sad but perhaps ultimately [and hopefully] not that of a significant ruling. Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- This page is to discuss whether a story fits the criteria for inclusion for ITN, not to give our own opinions on the issues like a forum. Our own views and analysis are completely irrelevant. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia discussion pages (including ITN) have always been somewhat informal. I think it was laid out pretty well why, in the grander scheme of the recent rollback of LGBTQ rights, this isn't noteworthy; a small comment in parenthesis doesn't change that. Gotitbro (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- This page is to discuss whether a story fits the criteria for inclusion for ITN, not to give our own opinions on the issues like a forum. Our own views and analysis are completely irrelevant. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
Support blurb "Even though all the sources are covering this, my personal opinion is that this is not a big deal and the reaction is overblown" is not a policy-based rationale and !votes on that basis should not be considered in the consensus assessment. The ruling has a global impact on the future of trans rights jurisprudence and is being widely covered in global reliable sources, because its undercurrent is a popular culture war (spearheaded by figures like JK Rowling) that spans borders. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Using common sense to look past hype and hyberbole of the mainstream press needs to be done. It's sane reason we rejected the dire wolf nom, as mist of the reliable press were over exaggerating what happened (though at least there it was possible to point to other RSes that spoke to this problem) Masem (t) 20:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- We don't have crystal balls and do not know what if any impact this ruling will have for the UK or elsewhere. We should base things on objective principles - the actual case rather than speculating on any future events. ITN shouldn't be a place for speculation, hyperbole, and attention grabbing headlines. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Black Kite. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Colossal squid
[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 colossal squid is filmed in its natural environment for the first time by ROV SuBastian. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, National Geographic, NYT, Science, Schmidt Ocean
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by IC1101-Capinatator (talk · give credit) and Sawitontwitter (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- (Probably took that long for the poor tiny scuba guy to swim away) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Really? No idea why people think these "science" hooks will ever go anywhere, but strong oppose as insignificant and lacking an article (I am not saying one should be made, though). — EF5 12:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Deffo mate. Science is for pansies. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Martinevans123, well, I'm not saying science is bad, it's just these stupid vanity "science" hooks. See also the "celebrities get blasted into space for a few minutes" nom below. — EF5 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's not science, that's slebs! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Martinevans123, well, I'm not saying science is bad, it's just these stupid vanity "science" hooks. See also the "celebrities get blasted into space for a few minutes" nom below. — EF5 12:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Deffo mate. Science is for pansies. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Really? No idea why people think these "science" hooks will ever go anywhere, but strong oppose as insignificant and lacking an article (I am not saying one should be made, though). — EF5 12:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose No article of its own and only two sentences in the linked page. That's not enough for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose It's just a baby Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose and consider WP:SNOW closing, this doesn't have enough content and also happened in March. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 00:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- The press release was on April 15 so it isn't automatically stale. Departure– (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on quality, support on notability; the biggest cephalopod and what may be one of the most elusive creatures left in the seas has been seen alive and caught on camera for the world to see in the flesh, in what took, in my opinion, far too long. I agree a few more sentences are needed and there's a cn tag (added by me to an unsourced claim), but in my eyes this is the sort of ITN spot we don't see nearly enough of, and what may just be a definitive moment in deep-sea exploration and cephalopod studies. Departure– (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment just do a quick Youtube search, I find this video (orginally from 2008). Haers6120 (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- "filmed in its natural environment for the first time". -- ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 04:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. While the blurb sounds exciting, this turns out to be video of a 30cm hatchling, which is inferred to be a member of the same species based on fin & tentacle morphology alone. The colouration is very different. How do we know this isn't a new species that doesn't grow as large? Even if the species identification is correct, it's not as interesting as filming an adult - which grow to over 10m long. Readers of the proposed blurb will be very unimpressed to find out that this 'colossal' animal is the size of a large sandwich. A live specimen of an adult was captured in 2007, though died soon after - we even have an image of it alive in our article File:Colossal squid caught in February 2007.jpg. So while filming a juvenile is of interest to scientists, I don't think it's important enough for ITN. Modest Genius talk 10:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I'd stick to something with less tentacles. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, regrettably, as per Modest Genius above. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The colossal squid is currently a subject in the news and it resulted in the addition of cited information to this article. If the concern is that it's not an adult, then add that to the blurb. I would oppose if the bold link was to a standalone article about the filming itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Much ado about nothing. — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Modest Genius. (This is the second time recently that Andrew has nominated a 'Colossal' animal story that turned out not to be, although for different reasons.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oh no, not another one. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Nora Aunor
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABS-CBN News
Credits:
- Nominated by HurricaneEdgar (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: A National Artist has passed away. HurricaneEdgar 15:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: some claims in the article are tagged as being unsourced. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality Huge loss for the Philippines (most especially its entertainment industry), and this was just extra tragic as her death closely followed Pilita Corrales' demise. However, three cn tags remain, but once those issues get resolved, I think Nora's article would be ready to be posted for RD. I honestly would have wanted this to be blurbed but remembering the chaos that ensued after Gloria Romero's passing was blurbed, I am not pushing for that yet (although I wouldn't be surprised if someone else would do so, I mean, Aunor was a National Artist after all). Vida0007 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- FWIW, most Filipinos would agree that Aunor was a more consequential actor than Romero, aside from the fact Aunor had a flourishing singing career ar first. If Romero was blurbed, moreso should Aunor. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle, oppose on quality The article is riddled with WP:FANCRUFT. Borgenland (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Sources also need to be cleaned up first, particularly the sheer number of blogs and other unreliable sources. As for notability there appears to be outside sourcing [3]. Borgenland (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support 112.204.165.24 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Her death has been covered by reputable international news outlets, such as (but not limited to) BBC, CNN, LA Times, NBC News, and The Independent. With that, it would even suffice a blurb. signed, Pat talk 03:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note on quality: The article still has tons of {{fact}} tags. Aunor's heyday was in the 1960s to the 1970s. This is not the United States where you can do a newspapers.com search and call it a day. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
Women’s World Chess Championship
[edit]Blurb: Ju Wenjun (pictured) wins her 5th Women's World Chess Championship title by defeating Tan Zhongyi. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ju Wenjun (pictured) defeats Tan Zhongyi to retain the Women's World Chess Championship.
News source(s): CNN Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Xrisk (talk · give credit)
- Created by PatGallacher (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Banedon (talk · give credit), SpyroeBM (talk · give credit) and Double sharp (talk · give credit)
Xrisk (talk) 07:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I overhauled the blurb a bit. Left guide (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting that the general World Chess Championship (last held 2024 and next in 2026) is ITNR, but the Women's WCC is not. This feels like it should be ITNR per how we have handled such gender-specific events. Masem (t) 12:07, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support, and I likewise think it should be ITNR. Double sharp (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Conditional support -- I've added one citation needed tag for the claim that it's the first time a player won four consecutive games since 1958, but if that's cleared up, count me as support. Agree that it should be ITNR. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 14:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support now (fixed) ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 14:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - International competition and worthy for inclusion. CN needs a better source. Adding chess com source as a provisional source. Likely something in newspapers archives. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support, also @Malvoliox: The statement you added CN tag was removed (and made an invisible comment ) because it seemed undue if no source is mentioning it. Only mention was an unreliable X.com post attached to a chess.com page (wp:or). --ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 14:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm unsure about this one. I'm sympathetic to the gender balance issue here, but it's not as clear-cut as in other sports. As a non-physical sport, most chess tournaments are open to any gender, including the world championship. Women primarily participate in open chess tournaments; women-only events are unusual. The situation is very unlike physical sports that have separate men's and women's competitions at all levels. However there hasn't been a woman in the top 10 players by ranking since Judit Polgar two decades ago, and none has won the world championship. The world championship last year received widespread media interest, high viewership, and a large prize fund; this women-only version did not, at least outside China. The article has decent prose about each game, but otherwise lacks information (compare to World Chess Championship 2024). So I think overall I'm neutral about posting this, and opposed to listing it on ITNR at this stage - that can be considered if this event gets posted multiple times in a row. Modest Genius talk 15:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's unclear why, but males have outperformed women in chess, thus they have decided there is a need for female exclusive tournaments and rankings. The nature of this debate is outside the scope of this page and determining whether something is worthy of inclusion of ITN. However, this tournament is a major world-wide tournament, with players all over the world, with strong international coverage, and major prize money which is enough to make it qualify for ITN. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've added an altblurb that matches the phrasing we used for the open event last year. Modest Genius talk 15:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I had misattributed the article creator. Fixed and added significant updaters. (Aside: I don’t know what the etiquette for attributing updaters is; I’ve picked the top 3 by added bytes from https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Women%27s_World_Chess_Championship_2025#tool-authorship) Xrisk (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose only one game has moves and there's also no aftermath section. Honestly the fact that this has gotten so many supports shows how arbitrary quality is. Banedon (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Banedon: I have added moves for all the games. (The chess.com pages have the moves, so I guess the citations to them in the text just before the moves are valid.) Double sharp (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is citing text with a footnote before some chess "standard" (e.g. World Chess Championship 2024)? Per WP:CITE, it's usually after the related text:
—Bagumba (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote.
- I figured that if it's what the open championship pages do, then it should be fine to do the same here. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is citing text with a footnote before some chess "standard" (e.g. World Chess Championship 2024)? Per WP:CITE, it's usually after the related text:
- @Banedon: I have added moves for all the games. (The chess.com pages have the moves, so I guess the citations to them in the text just before the moves are valid.) Double sharp (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support in theory. However some of the game descriptions seem a bit informal, e.g. game 3 "Tan eventually cracked on move 60" - is that normal for chess reporting? It seems like it should be in a "reception" or "commentary" section. I'm not a chess player, though. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
April 15
[edit]
April 15, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Arts and Culture
|
(Ready) RD: Werner Thissen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Katholisch
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: German Catholic archbishop of Hamburg, before for the longer time auxiliary bishop of Münster, not without making mistakes. The article consisted practically only of infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Fully referenced, short but meets minimum standards for depth. Marking ready. SpencerT•C 19:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Wink Martindale
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:
- Nominated by Rawmustard (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: Longtime radio personality and TV game show host. Several citations in the body are needed. rawmustard (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Several uncited statements exist throughout the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 10:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support do not see any real concerns including on referencing. It wouldn't get through FAC but that is not what is being discussed. 3142 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've placed eight citation needed tags. Schwede66 04:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
References
[edit]Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com]
rather than using <ref></ref>
tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref>
tags are being used, here are their contents: