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 16
[edit]
April 16, 2025
(Wednesday)
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
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)
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
|
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)
April 14
[edit]
April 14, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
RD: Peter Seiffert
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
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 tenor who sang Wagner roles around the (opera) world with a bright agile voice which was seen as a sensation in 1990 in Berlin. The article was poor, with only a tabloid about his death. There are now good references in German. The English ones rely pretty much on Wikipedia as it was. Deutsche Oper Berlin is decent in English, but would not be regarded as independent by some. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Nice article and well sourced. Grimes2 (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks ready. Thriley (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Imprisonment of Ollanta Humala
[edit]Blurb: Former president of Peru Ollanta Humala (pictured) and his wife Nadine Heredia are sentenced to 15 years in prison for laundering funds from Brazilian company Odebrecht. (Post)
News source(s): (AP) (BBC News)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- A single sentence in the lead of the Ollanta Humala, and nothing in the body, is most certainly not going to make this fly. And the Nadine Heredia article is silent on the sentencing. Schwede66 05:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe Having read around this, my impression that Humala is just one of numerous politicians swept up in this scandal. See Operation Car Wash for extensive details. This context should be mentioned in the blurb as I, for one, had not heard of it before. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, if anything probably should wait for what is expected to happen to Bolsonaro, and with that, mention that (as it seems to be the case) he and several others were sentenced for their role in Operation Car Wash Masem (t) 12:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Carlton Fairweather
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:
- Updated and 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.
Nominator's comments: Needs referencing clean up but other than that looks good enough. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Aliza Magen-Halevi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Times of Israel
Credits:
- Nominated by Longhornsg (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Deputy Director of the Mossad, highest serving woman in the agency's history Longhornsg (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - barely long enough but sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Some expansion would be nice, because this wikibio is currently a tad too stubby for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 10:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Blue Origin NS-31 all-women space mission
[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 all-women Blue Origin NS-31 space tourism mission, carrying crew members including Katy Perry, Gayle King, and Lauren Sánchez, launches successfully and safely returns to Earth. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Vanity Fair, BBC, Times of India, Toronto Star, Sydney Morning Herald, Le Monde
Credits:
- Nominated by Flipandflopped (talk · give credit)
- Oppose - Uh, hello? — EF5 16:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Space tourism is nothing new and the composition of the voyage, being all female and containing celebrities, doesn't change its overall importance to push this towards blurb-worthiness. Seems to me to be sensationalized celebrity gossip. Departure– (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'll also state that the mission itself only lasted ~10 minutes. It wasn't particularly long, nor did it achieve much beyond letting folks visit the literal edge of earth for however long. Departure– (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Departure. Nothing very out-of-the-ordinary about this, despite some short-term media hype, and I say that as someone who watched the live footage online out of interest. But it's not the first space tourism flight and I'm assuming these sub-orbital "missions" will become more common as time goes on. It's also not the first ever all-female crew as has been hyped by the organisers, (if one can call people on board who don't pilot the ship "crew") since Valentina Tereshkova flew a solo mission to space in the 1960s. — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Stunning & Brave. And space tourism's just a label. I suggest we remove it from the blurb/add an alternative one (i dont know how) ShirtMonopoly (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a policy-based reason for your support? To my knowledge "stunning & brave" are buzzwords used for puffery, not objective descriptions, and the least not when establishing an event's notability. Departure– (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, an 11-minute sub-orbital flight with 6 passengers. Don't know why people call them a crew, just like many such flights this is an uncrewed flight with only passengers on board, just like a driverless train doesn't have me as "crew" but as passenger. Calling these crew is rather insulting to real pilots, astronauts, and the like, who spend years training for the job instead of just paying enough money to be on board without any actual duties. In any case, media hype but nothing actually of lasting importance. Fram (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as @Amakuru said, "the first female flight into space" was Valentina Tereshkova and plus this is a routine manned mission to space by Blue Origin. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose there is literally nothing important about this spaceflight other than there being some celebrities on it. This also isn't even the first female in space. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 16:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, these happen quite often. History6042😊 (Contact me) 17:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: rich people go to space. Tofusaurus (talk)
RD: Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Star
Credits:
- Nominated by Tofusaurus (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of Malaysia Tofusaurus (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- ya beat me to it :( Shaneapickle (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- but anyways * Support This is a death of a former P.M, and this meets WP:ITNRD. Quality of this article does meet the standards by having the life as the main story. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note: resolve the sections without references and the citation needed tags first. Otherwise, this will not be posted up. @Shaneapickle and @Tofusaurus. – robertsky (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - as per Robertsky, a lot of CNs. Nobody's suggested a blurb as yet, and unlikely consensus for one would develop, but to be honest I think the death of national leaders should be more of a shout for a blurb than a lot of the routine "celebs" that are frequently nominated here. I'd probably come down as neutral on this one as his tenure was only six years and not necessarily transformative. — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
oppose - for now. Not properly sourced. Ping me when done.BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- Support RD Not really much information yet regarding blurb. But, assuming posted as RD, it is just sufficient. Feel free if someone adding the blurb in nomination. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. OLDMANDIES. Manner and direct impact of death not notable. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- the death of a prime minister is not notable? GodzillamanRor (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's notable enough for an RD line. But global news, it is not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- the death of a prime minister is not notable? GodzillamanRor (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - now looks good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ The Early Career and Political Career sections still lack citations, as well as the numerous [citation needed] tags are not resolved yet. – robertsky (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Khurshid Ahmad (scholar)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Express Tribune
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Ainty Painty (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- The exact date of birth is not in the source; just the year. Schwede66 10:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
[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 Trump administration refuses to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia despite a Supreme Court ruling. (Post)
Alternative blurb: President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refuses to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, France24, NYT, Times of India
Credits:
- Nominated by Bob drobbs (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Firstly, I think the current blurb is a little misleading because the Trump administration maintains they are not "refusing", but rather that they no longer have the authority to do anything other than request his return from El Salvador, who in return have refused to do so (a claim which is dubious and criticized among the secondary sources, but we have to have NPOV). Second, in any event, I oppose on the basis of WP:NTRUMP - although the case is horrifying, if every widely reported case where the Trump administration is abusing process and illegally deporting people gets a blurb, we will become a Trump ticker. I think we would need to see something like widespread protests and broader enduring coverage to justify a blurb. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and snow close per above. I don't think a consensus will be reached. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The issue seems quite significant in constitutional terms. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose and suggest change of the end of blurb to "despite a ruling from the US Supreme Court", and add "the" before return. I believe we didn't post Mahmoud Khalil; this should be a similar situation. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Arguably this likely becoming a constitutional crisis (along with every other court order that is being ignored like allowing the AP back into the press room, or restoring funding on various programs) is the far greater story, even more than the tariff stuff, as its respenting the collapse of a government if not checked. However, we're still at a phase where this story can be resolved in a way that follows proper justice, so its far too soon to be going on this one. Masem (t) 00:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose – Domestic news story of limited to no international significance. 5225C (talk • contributions) 01:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose until this boils over or otherwise escalates, which I'm nearly certain it will. Departure– (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose inaccurate blurb. If he showed up at a port of entry and asked to be let in, they would have to let him in to be in compliance with court order. But they have no responsibility to be pro-active about getting him to a port of entry. The entire point of sending people to El Salvador is that they are completely out of reach of the courts (and Congress). The machine is working as designed, even though you may dislike the task it is performing.Danthemankhan 02:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Update The topic is getting a lot of attention. One reason is the public appearance of Nayib Bukele at the White House and so I've added an altblurb about that development. Meanwhile, following the Supreme Court ruling, the legal case is back in the Maryland court where the judge has given the administration a Friday deadline to produce their plan. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- You're out of date. Last Friday was that deadline, the gov't refused, the judge has been requiring daily updates (including over the weekend) to answer her questions of Garcia's fate; they've provided the updates but they are vague and Garcia's lawyers are seeking contempt, and a hearing is planned for today. Eg: its why this story is being considered a constitutional crisis as the exec branch seems to be flatly ignoring SCOTUS and the district court order. The stuff with Bukele yesterday adds more concern to being in a constitutional crisis due to comments about deporting violent citizens to El Salvador now. Masem (t) 12:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Just how Wikipedia isn't pro-Trump, we also aren't (or shouldn't be) anti-Trump. Regardless, not of significance, as Trump has a history of disobeying orders. — EF5 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, not a Trump News tracker. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - this seems pretty local and minor. This is Wikipedia not Ameripedia. Nfitz (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- It looking like this is going to end with consensus for "oppose" and I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind.
- But I am sincerely puzzled by the standards applied here. The NCAA Division I women's championship is of global importance, but a constitutional crisis in the USA is not? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Stating that it affects only America is very clearly against WP:ITNCDONT, however I do agree that this seems to be not significant enough for ITN. Xtnova (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
April 13
[edit]
April 13, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
The Boat Race
[edit]Blurb: Cambridge University win the men's and women's events of The Boat Race. (Post)
News source(s): [1], [2]
Credits:
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Created by MIDI (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Happily888 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - article doesnt come close to being worthy, forgetting the fact that the event also barely registers as news. nableezy - 14:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not the top level of rowing. This is an amateur event only open to students at two universities, and only of interest to members & alumni of those institutions. The article is very brief and tells us little more than the proposed blurb. Modest Genius talk 15:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on notability per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, it is some boat race between two universities, not important.
- History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jean Marsh
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by BilboBeggins (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: English actress, best known for international audiences for role in Willow, which starred Val Kilmer, who has also coincidentally died recently. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support To me, she's best known for her role as Rose in Upstairs, Downstairs and it's interesting to find that she was the originator of the series. And that it was first broadcast over 50 years ago. And that she was married to Jon Pertwee. And more.
- The article is not perfect but it's good enough for RD as readers have already visited in large numbers – a bit more than Mario Vargas Llosa, who seems to be getting all the attention here. Seems like a subject that Martinevans123 might like.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Alas I've always a been a bit between floors, but I'll try and have a look, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- refs are needed, especially for films - perhaps separate that part of the article --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I added entries for her TV and theatre debuts which were missing but mentioned in the NYT obituary. As she was quite active for 70+ years, documenting every single role in detail seems like hard work. Best to focus on such key omissions. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- I remember her. She was in that episode of The Twilight Zone where the guy was imprisoned on an asteroid. Still some unreferenced stuff. Suggest just deleting it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I added entries for her TV and theatre debuts which were missing but mentioned in the NYT obituary. As she was quite active for 70+ years, documenting every single role in detail seems like hard work. Best to focus on such key omissions. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
2025 Gabonese presidential election
[edit]Blurb: Incumbent Brice Oligui Nguema (pictured) is elected as president of Gabon, ending his transitional government. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Military dictator of Gabon, Brice Oligui Nguema (pictured), is declared the winner of the 2025 presidential election
News source(s): BBC News AP
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) 03:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for update with results. Scuba 04:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Wait Some sections like "conduct" are incomplete as there are allegations of irregularities. Bremps... 05:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Per France24 ([3]),
International observers at polling stations across the country did not notice any major incidents, according to first reports
, indicating this election was indeed likely free and fair. I am adding this into the article. I do not know if the claims of fraud are WP:DUE; no one else other than that candidate (who was an official of the former dictatorship) seem to be saying this. Curbon7 (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)- Yeah buddy I don't care what the former colonial overlord of Gabon says, if the military junta announces the military dictator won with 90+% of the vote I'm going to be skeptical like the BBC.
- Also, in this CNN article it says Bilie-By-Nze, the guy in 2nd place, said the election was unfair, which is enough for me to think this blurb warrants a 'declared winner' instead of a 'winner' as with other less than legitimate elections Scuba 15:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- You’re underestimating how unpopular the Bongos were. By your logic, we would’ve characterised the 2020 US election as unfair. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Gonzalez, the 2nd lady, said the election below as unfair, so, by the logic… ArionStar (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- "Election monitors at the Citizens Observers Network (ROC) said they were denied access to several voting offices, but Oligui Nguema insisted the election had been "transparent" and "peaceful."
- "There were complaints of instances of irregularities in the process, however. At some polling stations the vote was delayed, while some voters on the electoral roll were not able to find where they were meant to cast their ballot. Bilie-by-Nze said he was particularly concerned by claims that in some places unmarked ballot papers were not kept in a secure location, and that he feared they could be used to stuff ballot boxes." - BBC Bremps... 18:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Gonzalez, the 2nd lady, said the election below as unfair, so, by the logic… ArionStar (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- You’re underestimating how unpopular the Bongos were. By your logic, we would’ve characterised the 2020 US election as unfair. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb 1, article’s of surprisingly good quality. Well done guys
- Per France24 ([3]),
- Kowal2701 (talk) 09:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment', should the fact that these were the first elections since the coup be added? History6042😊 (Contact me) 11:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb would become too long, since the ITN's tendency is to post as short as possible. ArionStar (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready. There's no results table, only a brief sentence with the headline numbers. The 'aftermath' section is a single sentence. The article needs the full results and multiple paragraphs of referenced prose describing the outcome. Modest Genius talk 19:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
(Ready) Ecuadorian general election
[edit]Blurb: Daniel Noboa (pictured) is re-elected as president of Ecuador. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Daniel Noboa (pictured) is re-elected as president of Ecuador, while the RC-RETO coalition wins a narrow plurality in the National Assembly
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)
- Created by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit), Philosopher Spock (talk · give credit), Borgenland (talk · give credit) and Jeffrey34555 (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.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Significant election. --Plumber (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt blurb Article in good shape and significant election. Supporting alt blurb since it covers the victors of both the presidential and parliamentary elections. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Needs work I looked through this and first noticed a tense issue. Then I read "A three-day ban on alcohol was imposed beginning on 7 February, with 20 people subsequently being arrested for violating it." This sounded unusual but the citation was quite inadequate. And, looking into it, I find that such a ley seca is normal in South America at election time[4] which the article doesn't explain. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Removed the alcohol ban since it's common and not really significant to the election. Can you specify the tense issue with examples? I already brushed up on some. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Examples include "The 2025 election follows an early election ..."; "The following pre-candidates have also been selected in the primaries of the national parties and are eligible for inscription..."; "The following notable individuals have been the subject of speculation about their possible candidacy ...";"After approval, three days have been given for political organizations to file appeals...". They are not major but seem typical of the tense issues which arise for an article which is built up while the election is ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Fixed! :) TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Examples include "The 2025 election follows an early election ..."; "The following pre-candidates have also been selected in the primaries of the national parties and are eligible for inscription..."; "The following notable individuals have been the subject of speculation about their possible candidacy ...";"After approval, three days have been given for political organizations to file appeals...". They are not major but seem typical of the tense issues which arise for an article which is built up while the election is ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Removed the alcohol ban since it's common and not really significant to the election. Can you specify the tense issue with examples? I already brushed up on some. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- support with caveat it is ITNR, however need to add the controversy o re-count and his emergency declaration the day before. This is NOT a legit result.Sportsnut24 (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The article is somewhat confusingly organised - I would have preferred to see the first round results & reaction first, then the runoff results & reaction, rather than mixing them together. The National Assembly elections are included in the same article but get far less prose than the presidential one. Still, there's plenty of prose, the results table is complete, and the article has plenty of references. This meets our quality requirements and is on ITNR. Modest Genius talk 19:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support ITN/R and ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.92.81 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose2025 Ecuadorian general election § Results lacks prose on second round results—it's only in the table (and lead).—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)- Strike oppose based on update mentioned below.—Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Re: "Aftermath" Wikipedia continues the NPOV misnomer of "Aftermath"-titled sections (Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § "Aftermath" sections)—Bagumba (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- So would it be best to remove the section all together / merge some of that info over to the result section? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Man, I've used "Aftermath" in articles I've written. The discussion you've linked to didn't actually present alternatives. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- That’s why I’m a little confused. The info in the aftermath section is relevant and properly sourced. I personally don’t see an issue since it talks about the impacts/reactions the election has. Maybe some info could be moved over to the results section and maybe some subheadings can be made to actual headings? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- The issue is purely the section title, "Aftermath", which refers to the period following a negative event i.e. implying the result and winner are bad. Fine for earthquakes, not so much for (fair) elections.—Bagumba (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- That’s why I’m a little confused. The info in the aftermath section is relevant and properly sourced. I personally don’t see an issue since it talks about the impacts/reactions the election has. Maybe some info could be moved over to the results section and maybe some subheadings can be made to actual headings? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I've removed "Ready" from the heading. There are some issues being brought up here that ought to be sorted first (and I don't count "Aftermath" in that). Schwede66 05:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: & @Bagumba:: Added more info in results section regarding second round. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Mario Vargas Llosa
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Peruvian writer and Nobel Prize in Literature laureate Mario Vargas Llosa (pictured) dies at the age of 89. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa (pictured), winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, dies aged 89.
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Carlstak (talk · give credit), Strattonsmith (talk · give credit), Alexcalamaro (talk · give credit), Moscow Mule (talk · give credit) and Jaguarnik (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.
elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nominated as blurb per above. One of the greatest recent writers. ArionStar (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment — I did not blurb this RD. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb A giant in his field with worldwide impact. Ornithoptera (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Influencing in several fields. Article is comprehensive and in good condition. Yakikaki (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Obviously newsworthy given Vargas Llosa's status. --Plumber (talk) 05:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Newsworthy and figure was at the top of his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready: Various gongs require citations, books need ISBNs... But support blurb when referencing complete. Moscow Mule (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb One of the great writers of Latin American and world literature.Jaguarnik (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe Relevant factors here include:
- The article is level 4 vital
- It's a former featured article. See the review for criticisms
- The Nobel Prize for Literature is often controversial – see Nobel_Prize_controversies#2010.
- I'd like to see some evidence that our readership is actually looking for this subject rather than Jean Marsh, say. It's not there yet.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Two, yes, it's not a featured article. So? There is a bar of quality to appear in ITN, but it's not that high. Three, have you actually read the reference? The so-called "controversy" is that he should have received the prize a long time earlier, but the comitee was reluctant to award him precisely because of his political positions. "The 2010 prize awarded to Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa stirred controversy, mainly due to his right-wing political views" is a highly misleading way to phrase it, as it suggests that the controversy was in awarding a right-wing writer and not the opposite thing. Four, really? Do you really want us to compare the significance of Vargas Llosa vs. Jean Marsh? Cambalachero (talk) 13:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- On point 4: Once again, Andrew - our own reader numbers are not a reliable source for anything, nor any sort of criterion for use in this or any other editorial discussion. Your frequent use of them is disruptive and misleading. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- @GenevieveDEon: Just a reminder that the user in question is topic banned from deletion-related activities for similar behavior. [5] BangJan1999 20:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment,
not ready yet (the honours section needs more references). Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb, article ready, a relevant person in his field as shown in the impact section. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb on notabilitu. Absolutely transformative. I'd like to note he was actively writing and participating in conferences and politics as recdntly as two or three years ago. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb as per others. Major writer of the 20th and early 21st century. Khuft (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb, noting that the honours section is now fully referenced. –FlyingAce✈hello 21:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Nobel Prize winner, pretty important writer. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- RD only - doesn't quite rise to the household name status worthy of a blurb. Influential in literature, but not a transformative figure on, say, a Thatcher/Mandela level. 1779Days (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb - top of his field. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb - hugely important figure in world literature, and the sourcing looks OK now. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, the selected works needs sourcing even if that means repeating sources in body or linking isbn numbers. But otherwise Support blurb once ready, as impact as a major figure figure is very much documented in this article. Masem (t) 13:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Blurb One of the most important people in modern Peru and Latin America for both his writing and political activities. I think he is just as important as his opponent Alberto Fujimori, whose death we blurbed a few months ago. --SpectralIon 18:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: there's a clear consensus for a blurb, though I won't !vote on that issue. The article has been updated, with a referenced section about his death, and seems to be in good shape. The works section now has linked ISBNs, which are sufficient for verification. I don't see any issues that would prevent posting now. I've added an altblurb that puts the same information in what I think is a more intuitive order. Marking as ready. Modest Genius talk 19:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support: article seems ready. No preference between blurb and altblurb. Definitely worthy of a blurb. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 01:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted original blurb. Schwede66 03:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Tommy Helms
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
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) 00:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
2025 Masters
[edit]Blurb: In golf, Rory McIlroy (pictured) wins the Masters Tournament. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Rory McIlroy (pictured) wins the Masters Tournament, becoming the sixth golfer to complete a career grand slam.
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by RockinJack18 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TheCorriynial (talk · give credit), Ktkvtsh (talk · give credit) and Johnsmith2116 (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: ITNR, first master's win for McIlroy - RockinJack18 23:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. 11 years in the making, big tournament, well publicized. 24.77.127.72 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support (Alt Blurb) Its close enough now that its probably passable for ITN. And I'd prefer the alt since a career grand slam is a very rare feat in not just golf, in many sports.TheCorriynial (talk) 00:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note Thanks to @NorthernFalcon for adding the alt blurb, the fact it's a grand slam is absolutely significant. - RockinJack18 01:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support per WP:ITN/R and notability of the achievement. This is the sixth person to ever achieve a career grand slam, and McIlroy is a noted golfer. Ahuman00 (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. BilboBeggins (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready. Article quality has often been an impediment to ITN posting golf items and this instance is no exception. The 'final round' section has just two citations for 700 words of prose, which is nowhere near sufficient. The 'criteria' section is a huge wall of bullet points, with excessive detail. I've tagged both. I'd also like to see some reaction to the result. The topic is certainly notable - it's on ITNR so isn't necessary to discuss. The alt1 blurb is good. However the article needs work to meet our quality requirements before we could post. Modest Genius talk 12:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as per Modest Genius. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Unfortunately, I have to shamelessly recycle the same pun I used when I opposed the 2024 masters last year: prohibitive quality issues are par for the course with golf articles at ITN. Similarly to the reasons that tanked last year's nomination, the "Field" section is oddly formatted and unintelligible to a layman reader, and there are CN issues throughout... FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality: still poorly cited for the length of the section on the final round, several orange tags to fix. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Kyren Lacy
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Nottheking (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 football player, dead a few days before a scheduled court appearance. Saw this in mainstream American news, and article already appears to be in good shape. Nottheking (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - looks sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Tragic and well known in the college football, and was soon to be NFL community. 24.77.127.72 (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unreferenced date and place of birth. Schwede66 03:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
April 12
[edit]
April 12, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
|
RD: Nicky Katt
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by BilboBeggins (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 actor. Was in films by Richard Linklater, Robert Rodriguez, Tarantino, Nolan, Soderbergh. Had many star billing roles, appeared in some well known films. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Filmography section needs additional sources. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 15:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Pilita Corrales
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABS-CBN
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:4481:9051:9C0D:65EB (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TofuMuncher (talk · give credit) and Borgenland (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: Filipino singer and actress. 240F:7A:6253:1:4481:9051:9C0D:65EB (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for the moment. Needs a lot of work; almost entirely uncited biography, discography, and filmography. ForsythiaJo (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
April 11
[edit]
April 11, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
|
(Posted) RD: Mikal Mahdi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (NBC News)
Credits:
- Nominated by Bloxzge 025 (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: Spree killer and the fifth criminal to be executed by firing squad in the United States. We posted Brad Sigmon's so I thought to nominate this. Bloxzge 025 ツ (Talk) 10:36, 11 April 2025 (EDT)
- Support - Fully sourced and updated.BabbaQ (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Good article. American executions have gained coverage outside the country. ArionStar (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support per both BabbaQ and ArionStarShaneapickle (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is in good shape. –DMartin 05:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. Sam Walton (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Tariffs in the second Trump administration or 2025 stock market crash
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Or China–United States trade war. Obviously in the news everytime. ArionStar (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose tariffs & trade war - IMO, those should be posted ITN when new tariffs/major developments occur. Support stock market crash in principle, however, the stock market is very volatile, as seen with the massive gain yesterday, so considerations need to be taken into account. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I believe the quality of all the articles looks good enough to be posted. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- There seem to be new tariffs and developments every day. Yesterday, there was another round of tit-for-tat taking the US / China tariffs to 145% / 125% which are crazy levels. And there's now a serious court challenge to the unconstitutional basis of the Trump tariffs by the New Civil Liberties Alliance and others. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note that I believe the quality of all the articles looks good enough to be posted. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The main challenge here is selecting a single topic. I reckon that this is so impactful and important that it should be handled as we did the pandemic – using {{In the news/special-header}} to list multiple articles. Here's how that looked:
- Andrew🐉(talk) 07:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- COVID affected all readers and editors equally so it made sense to actually dedicate a section to that on ITN. The trade war has far more disparate effects (currently affecting US and Chinese the most, with less significant effects in other countries), and being still about politics, makes zero sense to give it that much focus. Masem (t) 11:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- COVID did not affect everyone equally. Some people died; many people didn't even know they had it; and there was a big spectrum in between. The tariffs and trade wars will have disparate effects too but such uncertainty and volatility is the essence of Ongoing entries. We don't know yet how the Ukraine war is going to end or when. And the same goes for the other campaigns and conflicts. That's why they are Ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- COVID affected all readers and editors equally so it made sense to actually dedicate a section to that on ITN. The trade war has far more disparate effects (currently affecting US and Chinese the most, with less significant effects in other countries), and being still about politics, makes zero sense to give it that much focus. Masem (t) 11:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support China-US trade war, oppose the others. Ideally we’d have a broad article on this whole affair, the Trump tariffs one doesn’t include responses within its scope and mostly focuses on the US side of things. Stock market crash is a non-starter. Obv a trade war between the two global powers is significant enough, and the article is being updated enough for ongoing. Imo all escalations are blurb worthy so it makes sense Kowal2701 (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Tariffs in the second Trump administration but oppose US-China trade war: even if - and it's a big if - the original intent by the administration was to tailor the tariffs to contain China, its effects have clearly spilled over to affect the rest of the world. Nghtcmdr (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose at the current time Too soon right now to know how much these are going to be in the news on a near daily basis with the level of worldwide coverage. I'd rather like to see what happens over the weekend and how things are still being covered Monday to know if this going to be kept as an ongoing story by the media. If they just accept the high tariffs between the US and China and move on to other stories, it doesn't make sense to have as ongoing. That tends to be a problem with stories that are strictly political in nature is the volatility of how the stories move and how they are covered that make it really hard to nail why we should feature them at ongoing. Masem (t) 11:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. It’s different to military conflicts in that we can expect those to carry on for a while once started and get continuous coverage, whereas this could just be a flash in a pan. This episode may just be a farce like the Chinese spokesperson said, but the trade war’s been going on for much longer and has gotten a lot of coverage Kowal2701 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'd just like to have an idea of what we can anticipate the end game may be here. I know China's just bumped up the tariffs to the US again last night, but I have no idea what the end game may be here, whereas most other ongoings we have a good idea what the end conditions would be needed to remove it (just no idea on timing). I'd just like to know what clarity we can actually state, and with how haphazard that this is, its really hard to say. Masem (t) 13:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I agree that the event shouldn't be listed as ongoing just because the news cycle doesn't include the trade/tariff war between the US and China. Trump has implemented a 10% universal tariff on goods from other countries and has also put in separate tariffs against Canada and Mexico. That's the other part of the tariff story and so long as that is in the news cycle, I think the event should be listed as ongoing. As to what the "endgame" is, there seems to be consensus among outside commentators that Trump is using these tariffs as a tactic to negotiate/re-negotiate trade deals with other countries. If those come to a successful conclusion, the "game" at least according to Trump will have been won and I think that would be our cue to de-list the event from the bulletin (assuming we had agreed to include the event on it). Nghtcmdr (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- If all that happens now is that everyone accepts the 10% globally and the tariffs between the US and China remain at these levels, such that discussion about the tariffs still are in the news but not to the level that they were when Trump first announced them, that doesn't make for a good ongoing story since little is actually changing. I don't know if that's what will happen, which is why I am suggesting waiting a few more days to see how this goes, and if its better just to do normal ITNC on key updates or if ongoing really makes sense. Masem (t) 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- The tariffs between China and US can't really stay on these levels for long (145% and 125%), however. It amounts to a complete collapse of trade between the world's two largest economies. Stock markets are currently pricing in a climb-down of some sort. Should that not materialise soon, things could get quite ugly... Khuft (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think there could be a middle ground which we can occupy where we say the continuation of the US-China trade war no longer merits ITN inclusion, but only on the condition that America concludes trade deals with its other major trading partners. I don't have a problem waiting with you for the next few days to see how things develop, but I doubt Trump and his team would be able to bring those trade negotiations to a close within that timeframe. Nghtcmdr (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- If all that happens now is that everyone accepts the 10% globally and the tariffs between the US and China remain at these levels, such that discussion about the tariffs still are in the news but not to the level that they were when Trump first announced them, that doesn't make for a good ongoing story since little is actually changing. I don't know if that's what will happen, which is why I am suggesting waiting a few more days to see how this goes, and if its better just to do normal ITNC on key updates or if ongoing really makes sense. Masem (t) 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. It’s different to military conflicts in that we can expect those to carry on for a while once started and get continuous coverage, whereas this could just be a flash in a pan. This episode may just be a farce like the Chinese spokesperson said, but the trade war’s been going on for much longer and has gotten a lot of coverage Kowal2701 (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. This (these?) should be blurbed and reassessed when they fall off for ongoing. This is putting the cart before the horse. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- The primary nominated article – Tariffs in the second Trump administration – has just fallen off the bottom of the blurb ticker and so already satisfies this requirement. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support. In contrast to the previous proposal for a sweeping "Trump Presidency" ongoing post, I think this has more merit. I would support the "Tariffs in the second Trump presidency" article rather than the US-China trade war - for the simple reason that tariffs against the rest of the world are still in place (at 10% currently) but are due to rise in 90 days back to their initial levels if negotiations don't come to acceptable conclusions. Oppose the Stock market article for ongoing - the real action is on the bond market, not the stock market. The tariffs article's title is quite a mouthful, though - would prefer a shorter title for Ongoing. Khuft (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I opposed the related below nomination of the second Trump presidency generally, but I think the tariffs meet the WP:ONGOING requirements: it is
a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news
. The initial Canada/Mexico tariffs, the EU tariffs, the Liberation day tariff announcement, the escalating trade war with China, and the stock crash were all distinct events that are each independently newsworthy, but can be best covered by ongoing (we did in fact post two of the four). I have no doubt that the tariffs will continue to be frequently in the news, continuing that trend. I also support the more succinct Trump tariffs title (currently a redirect to the nominated article) for the ongoing section. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC) - Update The latest news is that Trump exempts smartphones and computers from new tariffs. The trouble with this is that "Everything is computer" now, to coin a phrase, and so that's a big exemption. Anyway, it further illustrates the ongoing nature of these policies... Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- The recent days are empty and only focused on the trade war… Nothing's in the news… ArionStar (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- There has been significantly other coverage, such as the deportation case. However, that's why we are not a news ticker, we should not be reflecting what the news prioritizes on day to day bases. Masem (t) 03:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The tariffs affect hundreds of billions of bilateral trade annually. That's larger than the market capitalization of McDonalds. I have a hard time imagining this won't be in the news for much longer, unless the tariffs are lifted. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I suggested waiting until after the weekend to see how the markets respond to these changes and if the tariffs still remain there. That Trump backed off for 90 days on the rest of the world makes it difficult to judge how to treat this now. Masem (t) 04:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- To add, if it is the case that the Chinese tariffs still exist and the market remains depressed, that's not really necessarily generating news on a near-daily basis that we'd want to see for ongoing; we did post the tariff news when they we first announced. Masem (t) 04:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The markets have already responded, in fact they've been responding ever since Liberation Day. You can see this from the stock market crash article; the crash began on April 2. Banedon (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The markets have been volatile, with a major drop on the first day the tariffs came in play, but whether the trend over multiple days continues a harsh downward trend is not yet clear. Masem (t) 15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure stock markets should now be our guide to post thing to ITN (or Ongoing). As mentioned above, the impact on the bond markets might be more significant long term. The fact is that for two weeks now, tariffs have been in the news every single day - just as the Ukraine war was (and mostly still is). Khuft (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand. The market crashed several days in a row, marking the biggest 1-week crash since Covid (in 2020), so I don't understand what you mean about whether there'll be a trend "over multiple days". Banedon (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- The markets have been volatile, with a major drop on the first day the tariffs came in play, but whether the trend over multiple days continues a harsh downward trend is not yet clear. Masem (t) 15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The markets have already responded, in fact they've been responding ever since Liberation Day. You can see this from the stock market crash article; the crash began on April 2. Banedon (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- To add, if it is the case that the Chinese tariffs still exist and the market remains depressed, that's not really necessarily generating news on a near-daily basis that we'd want to see for ongoing; we did post the tariff news when they we first announced. Masem (t) 04:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That's why I suggested waiting until after the weekend to see how the markets respond to these changes and if the tariffs still remain there. That Trump backed off for 90 days on the rest of the world makes it difficult to judge how to treat this now. Masem (t) 04:28, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The tariffs affect hundreds of billions of bilateral trade annually. That's larger than the market capitalization of McDonalds. I have a hard time imagining this won't be in the news for much longer, unless the tariffs are lifted. Banedon (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- There has been significantly other coverage, such as the deportation case. However, that's why we are not a news ticker, we should not be reflecting what the news prioritizes on day to day bases. Masem (t) 03:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- The recent days are empty and only focused on the trade war… Nothing's in the news… ArionStar (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support China-US trade war. The others could've been reasonable a week ago, but not at this point. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems unnecessary. No prejudice in relisting if they start shooting hostages. Nfitz (talk) 06:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- FYI How Trump’s Stock Market Chaos Is Dividing Wikipedia Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That article captures the problem we have broadly with NOTNEWS (and how it reflects at ITN) that editors are not thinking about how to write for the long-term and writing in too much detail about the present. Masem (t) 15:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- And it's harder to find references for older topics but there's just so much 'news' about contemporary things. Secretlondon (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- "dividing" it was SNOWclosed lol WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- That article captures the problem we have broadly with NOTNEWS (and how it reflects at ITN) that editors are not thinking about how to write for the long-term and writing in too much detail about the present. Masem (t) 15:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- strong oppose it was just closed below.Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support This has been spawning various global headlines over the last month at least. Affects multiple countries. Xtnova (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) 2025 Varanasi gang rape
[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: India grapples with news of a gang rape as Prime Minister Modi orders a strict response. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A 19-year old woman in India reports a harrowing sexual assault, igniting a national reaction.
News source(s): Press Trust of India (8 April 2025). "19-year-old allegedly gang-raped by 23 people over six days, six arrested". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 13 April 2025.
Credits:
- Nominated by Bluerasberry (talk · give credit)
- Oppose Gang rapes in India, unfortunately, are commonplace and, consequently, political debates take place, sometimes at the state level. Beyond Modi's pronouncement, it does not appear to be of any further consequence. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The article has a list of accused contrary to WP:PERP. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: Perhaps it is against a rule somewhere, but naming the accused does not seem to be part of the rule you linked. If anyone can show relevant guidance then I will edit the article to conform. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- For that specific rule see WP:SUSPECT, "
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.
" See also Trial by media and sub judice, which has been a big deal lately in the ANI case. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- For that specific rule see WP:SUSPECT, "
- @Andrew Davidson: Perhaps it is against a rule somewhere, but naming the accused does not seem to be part of the rule you linked. If anyone can show relevant guidance then I will edit the article to conform. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that's it! Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Resolved
- Oppose As noted, gang rapes are far too common in India, comparable to gun violence in the US. Not the type of event we cover at ITN, barring a significant govt response to take steps to actually stop it. Masem (t) 21:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
April 10
[edit]
April 10, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Leo Beenhakker
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, beIN Sports, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Sura Shukurlu (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: A well-known and successful football coach who has been the head coach of many succesful clubs, including being head coach of Real Madrid, Ajax and Feyenoord on multiple occasions. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support, article in decent shape, though Chaconia Medal, Gold Class can be sourced. RIP. Brandmeistertalk 07:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Have I read the same article as other commenters? The managerial career from 1965 to 2003, including title wins with the aforementioned clubs, is two paragraphs with no citations. Would we post Guardiola or Mourinho in such a state? The first team with a subsection is his against-all-odds qualification of Trinidad and Tobago to the 2006 World Cup, with no sources at all. There's definitely not an excuse to leave that section unsourced. I can remember a massive British press interest in that team, as most players were playing in Britain, some even born there, and they played a thoroughly commendable game against England. Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Unknown Temptation, I fixed most of your concerns. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - article is in decent shape after improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Unreferenced date and place of birth. Schwede66 03:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing Trump timeline
[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.
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- This is a rare case where I'm going to discount NTRUMP and say weak, weak support. He's causing absolute chaos and it's not going to stop soon if Project 2025 ends up playing out. — EF5 12:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Whether something is "chaos" or not is a point of view. ITN should be more about actual events, not our analysis of them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- My point is that it's non-stop chaos, which equates to non-stop news coverage. Non-stop news coverage can warrant an ongoing post, as WP:ONGOING notes:
The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news
. — EF5 15:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- My point is that it's non-stop chaos, which equates to non-stop news coverage. Non-stop news coverage can warrant an ongoing post, as WP:ONGOING notes:
- Whether something is "chaos" or not is a point of view. ITN should be more about actual events, not our analysis of them. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Someone's presidency is a well-anticipated ongoing event by default, and there are currently about 150 such events in the world. What is not anticipated are decisions made by presidents that make global news because of their potential implications. So, if you suggest that we should post a specific story from Trump's presidency onto ongoing (e.g. Tariffs in the second Trump administration), you should reformulate the nomination to clearly reflect it. As for China–United States trade war, there are already peer-reviewed research papers analysing the topic (see Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2022, Caliendo & Parro, 2023 and Alessandria et al., 2024), and the conclusions point out that both countries have got familiarised with the tariffs and every marginal change in that regard wouldn't cause major disturbances (by the way, US and China have been exchanging tariffs all the time since 2018, and this even intensified during Biden's presidency as noted by Alessandria et al., 2024).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Eh? You seem to be suggesting that the 125% – 87% US/China tariffs are marginal, well-anticipated and won't cause major disturbances. That's not what I'm seeing in the news. But such trade wars are one of many initiatives. The latest executive order has just ended the "war on water pressure"! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- There's already a sufficient body of economic literature so one doesn't need to regress to reading news articles. However big those figures may seem, they no longer cause a black-swan effect, which was the case in 2018. Both countries simply got used to the trade war after having exchanged tariffs on numerous products. I'd say that the next story to post would be if large American companies start relocating their production from China to other countries (probably India).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- A common theme of the coverage is that people were expecting a rerun of Trump's first presidency but have been surprised at how much more radical this is. We seem to be in new territory... Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- There's already a sufficient body of economic literature so one doesn't need to regress to reading news articles. However big those figures may seem, they no longer cause a black-swan effect, which was the case in 2018. Both countries simply got used to the trade war after having exchanged tariffs on numerous products. I'd say that the next story to post would be if large American companies start relocating their production from China to other countries (probably India).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Eh? You seem to be suggesting that the 125% – 87% US/China tariffs are marginal, well-anticipated and won't cause major disturbances. That's not what I'm seeing in the news. But such trade wars are one of many initiatives. The latest executive order has just ended the "war on water pressure"! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NTRUMP. Didgogns (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Trump is just one leader among many. There's a tendency of some people to want to turn sites into 24/7 Trump tracking sites, and we should avoid that. If 2025 stock market crash continues, we may post that, but it entirely depends on how the markets play out and we don't have crystal balls. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- This is just funny, frankly. The fact that this somehow merits its own article is truly amazing. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, this is not unique to Trump. Obama, FDR, and Biden also have dedicated articles for their first 100 days, and even outside of US politics there are articles for Rodrigo Duterte and Imran Khan. Given that Trump's first 100 days have been...eventful, to say the least, I don't think it's unreasonable at all that this article exists. Youraveragearmy (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note that those articles are nearly all prose while the one for Trump 2 is an excessively detailed timeline. That's a problem given we are a summary work and not meant to be written at that level of detail. Masem (t) 13:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- The article is fine to me, as this is a "standard" type of article about the first 100 days of a presidency. However, it should not be added to ongoing. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Note that those articles are nearly all prose while the one for Trump 2 is an excessively detailed timeline. That's a problem given we are a summary work and not meant to be written at that level of detail. Masem (t) 13:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, this is not unique to Trump. Obama, FDR, and Biden also have dedicated articles for their first 100 days, and even outside of US politics there are articles for Rodrigo Duterte and Imran Khan. Given that Trump's first 100 days have been...eventful, to say the least, I don't think it's unreasonable at all that this article exists. Youraveragearmy (talk) 12:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Update This was intended to be an ongoing nomination but the syntax wasn't quite right. I've corrected it now. The general idea is that, now that the "Liberation Day" tariff item has scrolled off, we should have an ongoing entry for the ongoing consequences and developments. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, Trump is consistently on the front page of every newspaper and news website. It seems like every day he does something new, and this would cover all of it. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 12:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, nearly everything Trump is doing makes widespread news, but this is where WP:NOT#NEWS is important - we should be working to summarize what are the important aspects, and not be drilling down into timelines at that much detail (We still have dozens of such lingering from the COVID articles that need to be fixed). Further, there's far too much issue around these types of articles being a honeypot for NPOV issues (not saying the current ones are failing NPOV but I know that as a whole, we as WP editors tend to focus on the negative aspects and thus NPOV can get out of hand). If anything, if Trump had not cancelled the tariffs, the global trade war as an ongoing would have been a more refined aspect since that has far reaching impacts as already demonstrated, but certainly not every single one of Trump's policies. Masem (t) 12:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support As much as I hate American-centrism, I think WP:NTRUMP is quoted too loosely here. Many actions of the second Trump administration, like shutting down USAID, the Signal chat scandal and the tariffs, have a massive impact on the rest of the world. Thousands, even millions, more people in less developed countries will die from war, disasters and diseases. A diplomatic row between the USA and multiple allies, leading to less intelligence sharing, while adversaries benefit from the leaked information. A market crash as countries scramble to negotiate with the USA and each other, companies struggle to shift their supply chains and consumers deal with higher prices. However, ITN did not blurb the first two, and there is a reasonable chance of future actions of the Trump administration causing further global chaos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.6.104 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose by default any presidency is ongoing and it is USA-bias / Trump-bias to post Trump's term into ongoing. If there is something specific that should be posted, that item can be nominated individually. Natg 19 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Unlike his first term, his current term is far more eventful in his 100 days than his previous term. In other words, the second term first 100 days is more eventful than the first 100 days of his first term. Rager7 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I believe that the idea to have an "ongoing" blurb for the Trump administration is justified. It would eliminate the need for debating every action taken, as those would now be covered in ongoing. This is a relatively rare occurrence; most heads of state, including most American Presidents don't generate as many notable events as this administration has. I don't think it needs to be limited to 100 days, though, as that is an arbitrary timeline created by the American media to cover the FDR administration and which has been applied to subsequent Presidents. There's nothing particularly significant about the number 100 here. Besides, that timeline will be up at the end of the month, anyway (April 30). If things calm down, it could be potentially removed at some point, but at the rate things are going, it could be justified for the full four years. Ryan Reeder (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - We should cover the events as they happen, rather than link to these timeline articles. As things stand, these are fairly indiscriminate collections of information. They're bound to be frequently updated, but are Trump's EOs about shower heads or the Gulf of Mexico really on a level with market chaos, illegal renditions, and sweeping cuts to government departments? GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Based on the fact that we don’t need to post everything Trump says or does and this can cover all of it. — Abu Isa🤔 (talk)
- Weak oppose WP:ONGOING states on the one hand that
The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news
(seems true here, we have Trump-related nominations here constantly), but also,generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article
. That second element is clearly false, as many of the Trump-related stories are blurbworthy events. The spirit of ongoing is to cover events which are notable in a general sense (like a war) and therefore receive consistent coverage, but don't have individual events capable of blurbs. That's not true for Trump (ex: tariffs). All this being said, while I think that putting this in ongoing might be a net good for ITN, because it would raise the bar for Trump-related articles to get a blurb because they will be presumed "covered by ongoing", we would be needing to fundamentally change the scope of what can be nominated for WP:ONGOING in a way I'm not quite comfortable with. FlipandFlopped ツ 19:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - The important events would be nominated for ITN itself while the less important ones would fall under NOTNEWS.
- WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for various reasons, echoing others. Having the Trump presidency in Ongoing is just too broad - why not have Putin's presidency there, then? A few supporters argue that this would allow us to avoid having to discuss the notability of individual events - yet, isn't this what ITN discussions are all about? Isn't that the very purpose of this page? Khuft (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not what ongoing is meant for. Trump's presidency isn't a specific event which is unfolding, might as well link the current history of the US. Gotitbro (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, but would support a nom for the ongoing trade wars, guess it's best covered by Tariffs in the second Trump administration but the scope of that is too US centric. China–United States trade war would be a better option since it's scope is the conflict rather than one side of it. Imo, escalations in that conflict are blurb worthy, so it merits ongoing.
- Kowal2701 (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Whether or not Trump’s individual actions are important enough to be covered by ITN should be decided on a case by case basis. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: Sometimes I feel people just nominate things here to get opposes slammed on them, but manage to get some explanation text which convinces few, mostly the revolutionary souls, whatsoever. This doesn't make sense per above opposes. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 03:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. Seems kind of bias like Khuft and Harizotoh9 pointed out. Hungry403 (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Overbroad. Individual Trump-related events (e.g. US-China trade war now, maybe the US-EU trade war, Canada-US-Mexico trade war in the future) should be nominated and blurbed before we take the extraordinary step of putting an entire government in ongoing. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Not the best article. ArionStar (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose makes absolutely no sense and I don't think it's because of a lack of knowledge of how ITN/Ongoing works. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
RD: Abel Rodríguez
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hyperallergic
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by ForsythiaJo (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: Indigenous Colombian artist known for his depictions of Amazonian flora. New article, but is beyond stub length and should be fully cited. ForsythiaJo (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted as RD) RD or Blurb: Titiek Puspa
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Indonesian singer and actress Titiek Puspa dies at the age of 87. (Post)
News source(s): Jakarta Globe, detikcom
Credits:
- Nominated by 103.111.102.118 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Normantas Bataitis (talk · give credit) and ForsythiaJo (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: She is a Indonesian legendary singer and actress who has a career spanning more than 70 years and has made a major contribution to the Indonesian entertainment industry. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD ; I've expanded the article further and I believe everything is sourced. I think the article could be further expanded with more Indonesian-language sources, but I think it's extensive enough for ITN. ForsythiaJo (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Are you supporting RD or a blurb, ForsythiaJo?
- On my part, I support RD but oppose a blurb. I don't see enough coverage in the global RS outside of Indonesia. FlipandFlopped ツ 16:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Edited my response to clarify, I support an RD. The nomination was only an RD when I left my comment. ForsythiaJo (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD as article is good quality. Oppose blurb at this time, as while there is a short legacy section, it really doesn't get into the depth of what I'd expect to see for such an entertainment figure at a national level. If that could be expanded (likely possible with obits), that might help for a blurb. Masem (t) 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD - An absolute giant in the Indonesian music industry (I never got around to using Alberthiene Endah's biography of her, but it was 400 pages), but unfortunately she's had very little impact outside of the country. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted as RD – feel free to continue discussing a potential blurb. Schwede66 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Very notable in Indonesia, but not very notable elsewhere. A simple google search about her only revealed Indonesian websites and none from other countries. INeedSupport :3 04:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
April 9
[edit]
April 9, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Roberto Cani
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Violin Channel
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: Italian violinist, based in LA as concertmaster of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, active around the world as soloist and chamber musician. Refs and facts were missing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article quality is sufficient. Cani was concertmaster of the Los Angeles Opera Orchestra, not LA Philharmonic. Grimes2 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out and fixing the article, - I thought they also performed for the opera, but wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 02:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ray Shero
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Athletic, NHL
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Abebenjoe (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 icd hockey executive and former Pittsburgh Penguins/New Jersey Devils general manager. Article needs citation work. The Kip (contribs) 18:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support I think it is in good enough shape to be used now, doubled the citations. Abebenjoe (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Kim Shin-jo
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): chosun.com
Credits:
- Nominated by 70.52.61.63 (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.
70.52.61.63 (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's comments : One of the two survivors of the infamous Blue House raid of 1968, an important (or at least unique) event in South Korean history where conflict between North and South could have had reignited due to this assassination plan of Park Chung-hee, an individual whose insight greatly helped understand what was going on behind that raid and who is representative of the whole event. --70.52.61.63 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support – the article seems to have no major issues. If other editors are concerned about the source cited, which is a short AI-translated blurb from a subsidiary of the The Chosun Ilbo, there are other RS articles too. [7] Toadspike [Talk] 15:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Needs reference for exact dob. Grimes2 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
- It has one now, I think, is it ok enough to get your support? 70.52.61.63 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- dob is date of birth. Grimes2 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- There, now you have a source for the exact date of birth, is it good now? 70.52.61.63 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Support No issues. Grimes2 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- There, now you have a source for the exact date of birth, is it good now? 70.52.61.63 (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- dob is date of birth. Grimes2 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- It has one now, I think, is it ok enough to get your support? 70.52.61.63 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 02:55, 16 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: