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.
March 22
[edit]
March 22, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
|
RD: Kitty Dukakis
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Boston Globe
Credits:
- Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former First Lady of Massachusetts and wife of Michael Dukakis. 88. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
March 21
[edit]
March 21, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
SAF recaptures presidential palace
[edit]Blurb: The Sudanese Armed Forces recaptures several key government buildings in Khartoum, including the presidential palace. (Post)
News source(s): AP BBC NYT Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by MT-710 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Major development in the war, widely reported. The article only speaks about this in one sentence, though. MT(710) 11:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Covered by ongoing Masem (t) 12:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- support notable of its own.Sportsnut24 (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Ongoing covers this. If the war ends that is probably the only notable thing that we can post. Along with this, article has only two lines of the recapture TNM101 (chat) 15:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose there isn't even a proper target article dedicated to the capture of the palace. Scuba 15:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
RD/blurb: George Foreman
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former world heavyweight boxing champion George Foreman (pictured) dies at the age of 76. (Post)
News source(s): The Houston Chronicle, The New York Times
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Legendary heavyweight boxing champion and namesake/sponsor of the George Foreman Grill. Blurb should probably be considered. The Kip (contribs) 02:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support
grill, er, blurb - Definitely a blurb-worthy figure, being on top of the field of professional boxing for years, and on top of the celebrity-endorsed side of the low-fat personal grill trend. Oppose on quality for now - there's a few uncited sentences in the career sections. Departure– (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC) - Support blurb - leaving quality judgment to the deaditors but as a popular heavyweight titleholder clearly belongs on the list Omnifalcon (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb as this is one of the vital articles in Wikipedia. Sinsyuan✍️🌏🚀 02:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, too much unsourced stuff. Oppose blurb at this point not that he shouldn't qualify as a major figure but the article doesn't concisely explain this, this should be at least one or two paragraphs within the body (not just the lede) to explain this. The points in the lede do make it clear why he would qualify as a major figure but the body does not properly also ahve this information, making part of the quality issue. Masem (t) 02:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. This is going to require some work. Neutral/leaning oppose on a blurb once up to scratch. However I will endorse his grill. I had one for years and loved it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb for the usual reasons. An elderly person dying is not news. –DMartin 04:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- "An elderly person dying is not news" - I'm curious, is there any policy against blurbing old people who have had a significant impact in their field dying? By that logic we would have left out Nelson Mandela, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush, and many other people. Tube·of·Light 05:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, Weak support blurb. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Boxing legend. — EF5 04:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, article has 29 CN tags at the moment, plus his fighting record is completely uncited. Once those are fixed, support blurb on notability, he's one of boxing's household names alongside Ali and Tyson, and CNN, the BBC and NY Times all have it on their front page. PolarManne (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality and Slight leaning support on blurb Up to 36 citation needed tags now, needs immediate work before posting. I personally have never heard of him (please dont grill me) but I guess if that many sources are reporting then he's probably important TNM101 (chat) 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, weak oppose blurb so many cn tags need fixing. And yes he was one of the top known boxers of all time, however that isn't enough to meet the "transformative" part needed for death blurb. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support blurb I don't know boxing or business inside-out. But I did always know who George Forman was, and so did many people around me who had no interests in those fields. The page List of world heavyweight boxing champions is going to need further reading for me to understand, but Foreman was one of the world champions in a worldwide, highly popular and highly competitive individual sport. Then he had the transformation into a completely new field by having his name in over 100 million kitchens around the world. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb, oppose on quality the Rumble in the Jungle attracted more viewers than the first moon landing—probably a quarter of the world. That's not a transformative just for boxing, that's a transformative event in modern world history. Sure, Ali was the protagonist, but Big George was the antagonist for a reason. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Temporarily oppose until the sourcing issue is dealt with (I've just added two citations, but there are a lot left missing). Once that's done, I absolutely support. Renerpho (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) F-47
[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 US air force awards its Next Generation Air Dominance contract to the Boeing F-47 (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, France 24, NYT, Times of India, USA Today
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Created by PopularGames (talk · give credit)
- Updated by PRRfan (talk · give credit) and Swatjester (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Strong oppose Besides being not a Trump ticker (the reason its F-47), we dont post business news like this Masem (t) 21:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per Masem. Departure– (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Domestic aircraft development project isn't really ITN. Maybe once it enters service in a few years? qw3rty 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support This is not any business/aircraft news and has nothing to do with a Trump ticker. It is important news in the present geopolitical context where there is talk of war everywhere. This plane is the most incredible jet fighter ever. This is important for world domination. Tradediatalk 22:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have literally zero confidence this will actually be pursued, given... yeah. Might reconsider once this actually enters service, but other than that this isn't super important. — EF5 22:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as I recall, we did not cover any other major contracts/unveilings; the photo shows it was unveiled in a similar manner to the B-21 Raider. (which as I recall was never covered in ITN at any stage) While an interesting development, (and sorely-needed good news for Boeing) I don't really think that major turns of the procurement side of things ever really match up to the level for ITN. It'd be excellent DYK (or possibly even OTD) material, however. Nottheking (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Oleg Gordievsky
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (BBC)
Credits:
- Nominated by Eustathius (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.
— Preceding undated comment added 21:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Osman Sinav
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): (Hurriyet)
Credits:
- Nominated by QalasQalas (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: notable but needs some work QalasQalas (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) London Heathrow Airport Fire
[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 fire at an electrical substation causes London's Heathrow Airport to shut down all operations, leaving hundreds of thousands of passengers stranded throughout the world. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald
Credits:
- Nominated by Flipandflopped (talk · give credit)
- Created by ElijahPepe (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose on quality - Two sentences on outages and only a single paragraph on the fire. — EF5 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support Major international chaos, one of the busiest airports in the world. More than 1300 flights and 200000 passengers affected. Royaltymv (🗨️) 15:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support per Royaltymv. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Barring some delays, this seems awfully unimportant to me. The fire wasn't at Heathrow itself, it was at a nearby substation, and I'm questioning how exactly this'll be important in the greater scheme of air safety. Nobody was hurt, they're just going to be late - besides, this was Heathrow, which, while maybe London's biggest, isn't their only airport. Yes, this type of thing is rare and has global effects, but I don't think it's of much importance or blurb-worthy. Departure– (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- To answer your question, events like weather often cause widespread cancellations, and that is not unusual. But, to your point, a fire not even at the airport but at a nearby electrical substation causing a total shutdown of all airport operations for 24+ hours, somewhere as huge as LHR? This was unfathomable within the aviation industry right up until it happened this morning. The NYT offers this quote from the Head of the International Air Transport Association:
- "Firstly, how is it that absolutely critical aviation infrastructure — of not only national but also global importance — is totally dependent on a single power source without an alternative? If that is the case — as it seems — then it is a total and complete planning failure by the airport, and we will investigate". FlipandFlopped ツ 16:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support as this would cause chaos due to the fact that Heathrow Airport is one the most busiest airports, and a fire could easily cause cancellations of flights. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm curious about the conditional nature of your comments. "This would cause chaos" - it already has. "A fire could easily cause cancellations" - it already has. A comment like that would ordinarily violate WP:CRYSTAL - but you appear to be predicting things which have already happened, and are in fact the main substance of the newsworthy material here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- bruh im sorry i didnt know :/ Shaneapickle (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- You don't need to apologise. I just don't understand why you would use 'would' and 'could' about facts that were in the very nomination you were responding to, as well as on the front pages of major news sites. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- bruh im sorry i didnt know :/ Shaneapickle (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm curious about the conditional nature of your comments. "This would cause chaos" - it already has. "A fire could easily cause cancellations" - it already has. A comment like that would ordinarily violate WP:CRYSTAL - but you appear to be predicting things which have already happened, and are in fact the main substance of the newsworthy material here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment This needs more work. Secretlondon (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, support on notability The 4th biggest airport in the world is shut down, the impact of which meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. That being said, the article about the fire and impacts does not meet WP:ITNQUALITY, would expect a significant amount more text added (particularly on Heathrow closure as that is the main story here). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC).
- It's shut down for a day at most, that is not significant in the larger picture of events. If it was closed for like a week, that might be getting somewhere, but there are disruptions all the time at airports that shut them down for hours to days at a time, weather, accidents, security incidents, etc. There's zero reason to give Heathrow any special attention here for this reason. Masem (t) 17:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability. The article could do a better job of explaining the significance, but this is an unprecedented major infrastructure failure with global implications. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think it's more about the lack of resilience of major privately owned national infrastructure. They say flights will resume tomorrow fwiw. Secretlondon (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Had this gone on longer, I think it would have been worthy of posting, but flights are supposed to resume later today and it will be open again tomorrow. Airport closures like this happen, though the reason may be different. Atlanta's airport, the busiest airport in the world, had to close two months ago because of weather [1]. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Barring any word of extensive (in the billions) of damages or loss of life, this is a "first world problem" and the temporarily stranding of thousands of passangers is not appropriate to cover at ITN. Masem (t) 16:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - Only one day. Effects are not unique; airports close all the time, this one has lots of attention only because of the cause. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose No lasting effect. This will be forgotten in one week. Tradediatalk 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait until it's clear whether it was an accident or not, it might be significant enough if it's a terror attack (although unlikely given no group's claimed it) Kowal2701 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose are we reporting every fire on earth now as ITN? Scuba 00:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Very evidently not, but we do cover major fires and fires with major impacts. This is a fire that had major impacts. Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose At first it sounded like it'd be substantial enough, but disrupting 1,000-2,000 flights is only along the lines of what a typical severe winter weather event might cause. Had this been a prolonged event, or had some other particularly unusual cause/impact, I'd have felt differently. But as it stands, we see numerous disruptions of this scale around the globe every year; the only real difference is that it affected Heathrow and not a different airport. Nottheking (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose When so many of the Support posts use the blatantly tabloid and quite meaningless word "chaos" to support their positions, I'm not convinced we have significant news at all. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support affects hundreds of thousands of people directly, and more indirectly. Compare that to some of the minor accidents that we post on ITN and it's not a comparison. Banedon (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not have a long-lasting impact and also airport closures are not generally ITN worthy. Moraljaya67 (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) Happiness
[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: Finland and other Nordic countries top the rankings again in the World Happiness Report. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
- Oppose What should set this apart in significance from the HDI/democracy/ease of business/environmental and a numerous other such indices is not at all apparent. Why unchanged ordinal listings from the top are given and not other changes or just a release of the report is also unclear. Not really in the precedence or importance of ITN items that we post. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Has zero impact, and its not up to us to try to balance the amount of bad news that is coming out with good news. That's just how the news works. Masem (t) 13:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per both Masem and Gotitbro Shaneapickle (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose, we don't filter out bad news and add extra good news, we post major events as reported on by news companies. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is reported on by numerous respectable news companies. I started with a couple and since then have seen that it's on the front page of the UK's newspaper of record this morning – The Times. It's not especially good or bad – it's rather a mix. But filtering this out is definitely what you're doing. It's blatant. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- If it doesn't meet ITN we shouldn't add it just because it is good. Also User:Gotitbro makes a good point that other indices are not posted, so why should this one be? History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- This is reported on by numerous respectable news companies. I started with a couple and since then have seen that it's on the front page of the UK's newspaper of record this morning – The Times. It's not especially good or bad – it's rather a mix. But filtering this out is definitely what you're doing. It's blatant. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Switch my oppose to Oppose + Close per Masem, Gotitbro, and History6042Shaneapickle (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Snow close, it's clear this won't get consensus to post. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Neutral This is definitely going to be closed early per the snowball clause, and I was about to close it myself. But I honestly do feel a little differently from the rest so I figured I'd rather be involved than be closer. I appreciate this good faith nom as someone who loves keeping track of indices like this. I keep track of the Democracy Index, the Press Freedom Index, the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, the World Happiness Report nominated here, the Gender Inequality Index, and the Global Peace Index. I might be the only ITN lurker who actually finds these annual lists fascinating and wouldn't mind posting one or two of them per year as long as they get enough news coverage. A few years ago, I even took the time to painstakingly enter all the data from all of the indices I mentioned and averaged them together to determine the best country as of 2021 (it was Iceland, barely beating out Norway). But I also have to recognize that this is an exceedingly niche subject matter that very, very few people will find half as interesting as I do. I'd support if I were convinced this is getting enough attention in the news, since I view a country earning 1st place on a major index as analagous to an individual earning an annual award – it's not that different from the sort of things we already post (though I also recognize that some ITN regulars feel we already post too many awards as-is). But even if I outright supported, my lone !vote would be buried in snow. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- These explicitly are not competitions or awards and shouldn't be treated as such. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- The phrasing of
"these explicitly are not competitions or awards and shouldn't be treated as such"
implies that the people behind any of these indices have commented on treating them as competitions and advised against doing so, but I'm not aware of any such comments being made. I'm also not exactly sure what it would really mean to "treat them as competitions" – after all, all we'd be doing is stating the name of the country that received the best score, something that these indices already do themselves in their reports, and something the media announces in its reporting. All throughout the actual text of the World Happiness Report is paragraphs of exposition about why Finland in particular received the highest score, we wouldn't be doing anything they're not. I'm okay with us not posting on notability, I just disagree with this implication that blurbing them would be treating them inappropriately somehow. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- The phrasing of
- These explicitly are not competitions or awards and shouldn't be treated as such. Gotitbro (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - what's the impact of this?
- Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality and on notability. Even if notable, the 2025 update is not in the article, so quality is not met. Natg 19 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
March 20
[edit]
March 20, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Eddie James
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Rockstone35 (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: Was executed by the state of Florida yesterday, March 20th. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Vitold Fokin
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (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.
ArionStar (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is well cited and good enough for RD. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the article needs more sources and in-depth coverage of his life and premiership. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- SupportArticle is in good enough shape. –DMartin 01:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Kirsty Coventry elected first female president of the IOC
[edit]Blurb: Kirsty Coventry (pictured) is elected as the first female president of the International Olympic Committee. (Post)
Alternative blurb II: Zimbabwe's Kirsty Coventry (pictured) is elected as the first African and female president of the International Olympic Committee.
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:
- Nominated by Hektor (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
Hektor (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Orange tag. ArionStar (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I rephrased the blurb and put her picture as well TNM101 (chat) 17:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Two orange tags. Secretlondon (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - only one sentence on the election. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose president of the IOC isn't ITN worthy in my opinion. Scuba 20:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support in principle as IOC president is the top post in the world of sports. A bit more info on the IOC selection process, her relationship with Thomas Bach (apparently her mentor?) would be useful. Khuft (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support First woman to be elected as IOC president seem like a big deal. Even if IOC is a big corrupt mess. Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability(this should be ITN/R), but wait becuase of article quality. Article needs to be made WP:BLP compliant. –DMartin 01:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose On quality/notability and that people get elected alot, it's all politics. Wish her luck though Koltinn (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Koltinn: Well of course it's all politics, it's an election. –DMartin –DMartin 05:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not ITN material. She's not running a country, it's just an administrative organisation that organises the games. — Amakuru (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability. Noting that, while guidelines are not necessarily equivalent between projects, it is already on the German Wikipedia, Swedish Wikipedia, Dutch Wikipedia, out of the other top 10 Wikipedias. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support I can see why the first African and first woman to lead the IOC would be notable. Based upon the fact that other language Wikipedias are running it is precedence enough for me to support it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality For all this, this (the current bolded article, about the sesssion) is really a short article (once you ignore the pictures and stats). And if it were to have Kirsty Coventry as featured, that's far away from being close to properly sourced. Masem (t) 13:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- has been updated. Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per ITNR but wait untill the session officially concludes. Shaneapickle (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Bach's election in 2013 was posted, for reference. Personally I'm not convinced the head of the IOC is noteworthy enough for ITN, but I'm not a real expert on the power the IOC president has. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support This will have a major impact world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability, but oppose on article quality. Neither the current bolded article (144th IOC Session) or the article on Coventry are ready to post. Natg 19 (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not think who is IOC president is important enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 21:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- this falls under ITNR and according to another person, Bach's election was posted. Shaneapickle (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- This does not fall under ITNR. ITNR covers general elections for sovereign countries, European Union elections, and United Nations Security Council elections. Natg 19 (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't ITN/R. Scuba 00:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support, like Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, who also appeared, leaders of major international organizations are equally relevant. ArionStar (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support First woman and first African is the positive news some have been calling for. Secretlondon (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- support blurb2 First women and first African (should be ITN too as a the largest int'l sporting body).Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- note itnr discussion started on the talk page.Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
RD/blurb: Eddie Jordan
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Eddie Jordan, the motorsports driver, entrepreneur and pundit, dies aged 76. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Motorsport driver and businessman Eddie Jordan dies aged 76
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:
- Nominated by KTC (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.
KTC (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb Definitely a giant of the sport in more ways than one. Signed Michael Schumacher into F1, had long-standing team which promoted many new names, was a renowned commentator and Ireland's best known name in F1. His influence on the sport was enormous. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, undecided on blurb. Good article and undoubtedly a major figure in F1, but I'm not convinced he's the kind of figure than breaks out of that domain into general interest to the extent that justifies a blurb. Big figure in British media after his team ownership days but I'm not sure about wider reach. The US isn't really a big F1 market so may need to give this 12 hours for Austrailia to comment. 3142 (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Well written and major figure in F1. I have no objections to a blurb. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality many lines and paras are unsourced. Please, check the article before blindly support the nomination. I've added some CN tags and orange tagged the article. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've looked at your tags and many of them strike me as redundant: for example you have tagged a statement that is primarily about Heinz-Harald Frentzen, but there is a link to Frentzen right there and his article is referenced. Just because people reach a different conclusion to you doesn't mean they have not done their homework, indeed, a reader attempting to verify an article or a reviewer assessing quality is expected to scratch a bit deeper than blindly asserting "Oh look there's a sentence without a hatnote there." 3142 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Our citation policy requires citations to be in the article even if there's a blue link and it is cited there. Articles are meant to be able to be used in isolation (like if someone printed it out). — Masem (t) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- great that the article and tags are checked, it is the only way to ensure that the article has the quality it should have to be posted and that it doesn't have yet. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've looked at your tags and many of them strike me as redundant: for example you have tagged a statement that is primarily about Heinz-Harald Frentzen, but there is a link to Frentzen right there and his article is referenced. Just because people reach a different conclusion to you doesn't mean they have not done their homework, indeed, a reader attempting to verify an article or a reviewer assessing quality is expected to scratch a bit deeper than blindly asserting "Oh look there's a sentence without a hatnote there." 3142 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality. Oppose blurb, there is nothing in the article that indicates how he was a major figure in F1. We cannot take handwaving claims of greatness. Masem (t) 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality and RD only. Yes, he is a major figure in F1, but I just don't think he is a world-wide famous figure known for everyone. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality and Oppose blurb per Masem. After reading through his article (and all those uncited statements), I cannot see how he had the sort of "transformative impact" in F1 to deserve a blurb. If the sentences do get cited, I will support for RD TNM101 (chat) 12:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Support RD only as article is now well-referenced TNM101 (chat) 17:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, oppose blurb - per TNM
- Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment some of the oppose votes are quite baffling. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and is one of the biggest sports worldwide, its popularity in the US is merely an anomaly in the global picture. Jordan revolutionised the sport in that he gave so many notable drivers their debut and the way in which he ran his own team (which is a rarity in F1). He was Irish, Jordan raced on an Irish licence, he lived in South Africa, his popularity was global. The article does not reflect this, but that is a quality issue not a notability issue, we should not conflate the two. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's not baffling at all Abcmaxx; there are probably multiple dozen people who would rank above Jordan in terms of impact on Formula One, and if you rank that far down you haven't had that big of an impact. I loved Eddie Jordan's character, kindness, and Belgium 98 will always have a place in my heart, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- None of that, on terms of being a major F1 figure, has sourcing to say those are elements of his greatness. Those aspects are documented, but not why they contribute towards being a major figure. That's the handwaving I'm talking about. If that can be sourced from multiple RSes including obits, then maybe that helps. But no sourcing of this type means we can't begin to consider that. — Masem (t) 23:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Article is in a bit of a better state now, in my opinion. All CN tags have been resolved, and major issues (that I am aware of) have been fixed. Formatting and phrasing has also been adjusted to be more organized/encyclopedic. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not remotely blurbworthy. For the umpteenth time, death blurbs are not for "people I've heard of" it's for the true top contributors. Not sure who might qualify in F1, perhaps Schumacher or Hamilton as legitimate "goat" contenders, Verstappen if he continues his trajectory, but that's about it. Jordan was a charismatic and interesting character, but not transformative. — Amakuru (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb, wait due to quality Per ABC, Jordan was the one last "true" privateer team relying on sponsors, to score wins also being a foot in the f1 or second chance. Amakuro, I ask you DID Verstappen, Schumacher or Hamilton run an F1 team? Koltinn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb If getting a blurb was in Monaco, Jordan would be in Singapore- not even the same continent of being sufficiently transformative in his field. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb I held back yesterday because of the shape of the article, but it looks much better now, enough for RD. Blurb is not warranted since that should be reserved for the absolute biggest figures in their respective fields, and yes, Jorday was influential, but in the end not nearly successful enough to be considered "a great". Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD only The article is now good enough to post at RD. Whilst a big name in F1 for a long time, don't think he meets the death blurb threshold of "transformative". Joseph2302 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
March 19
[edit]
March 19, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Closed) Serbian PM resigns
[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: Following months of protests in Serbia over government corruption, prime minister Miloš Vučević resigns. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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.
(Posted) RD: Aaron Gunches
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by INgIEroC (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 Inmate that was executed. article seems good or at least very close to. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is good enough for RD. I have added one cn tag, although that's very minor and shouldn't hold this up TNM101 (chat) 12:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. CN tag addressed. SpencerT•C 16:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Andrija Delibašić
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Nova Sport
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Montenegrin footballer who died from cancer. article seems close to being ready Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Well-referenced and of good length for RD TNM101 (chat) 07:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu
[edit]Blurb: Turkish Police arrest the Mayor of Istanbul, , on allegation of corruption and terrorism, sparking protests in Istanbul and in other places in Turkey (Post)
Alternative blurb: Ekrem İmamoğlu (pictured), the Mayor of Istanbul, is arrested by the Turkish National Police, sparking anti-government protests across the country.
Alternative blurb II: Anti-government protests break out across Turkey following the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu (pictured) by the Turkish National Police.
News source(s): [2] [3] [4]
Credits:
- Nominated by SymphonyWizard72 (talk · give credit)
- Created by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Notable for ITN! SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
However, my blurb might not be good enough? (First time posting ITN candidate), please add altblurb instead of support/oppose, thank you! SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SymphonyWizard72:, I fixed the blurb. History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Good faith nom, but I don't think the arrest of a subnational leader is consequential enough for ITN. Estreyeria (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Probably, but it seems to be enough to trigger quite a large protest in Turkey as of now. https://apnews.com/article/turkey-istanbul-mayor-police-search-ead3dd38aa547ecd13bc336e7d6c4d58
- Did we post the Serbian protests after a train station roof collapsed?
- Also maybe consider posting a protest article if this blows up into a series of national anti-Erdogan protests. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Blurb should probably mention 100s of others that supported Imamoglu were also arrested and have taken steps to block social media and other routes of freedom of expression. Also should add that Imamoglu was to be the candidate against Erdogan in the election (eg this is all politically motivated) Masem (t) 12:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose the current target article I feel there should be a target article on the arrest of him and the others along with the related protests that occurred as a result of this. Nonetheless I have added an altblurb for better phrasing TNM101 (chat) 14:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, not a nat'l leader. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Surely another blow to democracy in Turkey, a framing in that light and in context of the upcoming elections may help. Gotitbro (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support notability but oppose on current quality This is the strongest politician in opposition to Erdoğan, and favourite to win the next Istanbul election which is widely seen as the last step before running the country (Istanbul is one of the world's largest cities and still is and has been of significant global importance for centuries, so this should be unsurprising). However this should have a Arrest of Ekrem İmamoğlu article explaining in detail the quasi-legal justification and the ramifications of such a move, including the political science behind the democratic erosion. Abcmaxx (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability Sure, an arrest of a mayor is not sufficiently notable in and of itself, but if it is generating mass protests and wide-scale coverage in global sources, then it can fit the bill. Just as equally, the death of a woman in police custody or a man being murdered on the street by police, in and of itself, would not not be featured on ITN. However, those kind of events can become eligible once it generates both (a) global reaction in the RS and (b) mass protest. Newspapers across all seven continents are covering these protests in depth, just as they did in those examples, so both those criteria are made out here. FlipandFlopped ツ 17:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability per Abcmaxx and Flipandflopped - this represents a massive crackdown on the remaining opposition to Erdogan, which IMO is notable. However, oppose on quality given there's no standalone article and the update to İmamoğlu's own article is brief. The Kip (contribs) 17:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- The mayoral arrest of the most European populous city erupting nationwide protests? Support. ArionStar (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb Way better than my original blurb, and way more fitting now that there is a standalone article on the protests rgearding the arrest of the mayor. SymphonicWizard72 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb: Was going to oppose this topic on notability but it seems more news outlets are beginning to pick this story up. TansoShoshen (talk) 05:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose At this point in time, I do not feel we have enough for an ITN. Tradediatalk 11:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- How so?
- I think it should be posted while the iron is still hot, so it will also bring attention to the current situation in Turkey. "Enough" is also subjective, as the 2025 Turkish anti-government protests article should already be "enough" for ITN notability, even if the mayor's arrest article might not be. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per FlipandFlopped ツQalasQalas (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Update: The Turkish government is censoring protesters. ArionStar (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I added a second altblurb that focuses more on the protests than the arrest. –DMartin 01:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability but oppose on quality. The arrest of Istanbul mayor has received international significance. However, some article needs to be address the citation issues. Moraljaya67 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability, especially given the follow-up protests and the fact that İmamoğlu was one of the main opposition figures. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
March 18
[edit]
March 18, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Kanzi (Bonobo)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kanzi-the-bonobo-who-learned-language-and-made-stone-tools-dies-at-age-44/
Credits:
- Nominated by WhirrSlorward (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: Sorry if the formatting isn't up to standard, this is my first time nominating. It may seem like an odd choice to put in recent deaths, but I think being arguably the most intelligent and one of the most well known and studied animals justifies being included in the recent deaths page. WhirrSlorward (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. You just explained it all. He died recently with a wikipedia article. include it. Jayson (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Don’t see any reason why RD should be limited to human deaths, so would support when that orange tag regarding factual accuracy is resolved. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's not at all. We've had race horses and even a tree. Secretlondon (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jessie Hoffman Jr.
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by NelsonLee20042020 (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: Executed American. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Was not familiar with the case but good article. I was a bit hesitant, ITNR notwithstanding, because with this kind of nom it is always an issue are you glorifying heinous acts? However this one has gone as far as SCOTUS which makes it notable enough for me. 3142 (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 16:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Fedor Malykhin
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTVI
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (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: Russian ice hockey player. Article seems short but adequate. The Kip (contribs) 03:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Well-sourced and written, if brief, though no explanation for the early death. (Sourced update now added by another editor.) Jusdafax (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Assassination attempt on Hassan Sheikh Mohamud
[edit]Blurb: Al-Shabaab militants attack a convoy carrying the president of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (pictured) near the palace complex Villa Somalia in capital Mogadishu, killing at least 10 people and leaving 20 others injured. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Somali president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud survives an attack on his convoy by Al-Shabaab that kills at least 10 people.
News source(s): idilnews
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
- Created by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Obviously notable enough for ITN. ArionStar (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/weak support - slightly short, but IMO, it just barely passes quality criteria as there isn't too much info out yet. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait/Support - Very notable but lack of a good article, I'd hold out and wait for more information regarding the attack. Thesogra (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready: Only 2 lines of prose on the attack itself. MT(710) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability but oppose on quality - the article is mostly background at the moment, with little on the attack itself or aftermath. The Kip (contribs) 18:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability once article is updated. In my view, assassination attempts on sitting heads of state should probably even be ITNR. FlipandFlopped ツ 19:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Al-Shabaab has been making attempts and attacks for years but they don't amount to much when they fail like this. Somalia has been a failed state for even longer due its civil war and so its pirates and warlords naturally generate lots of violence and chaos. It's yet another ongoing armed conflict which we should link generically in Ongoing rather than trying to cover every incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- An attempted assasination of the sitting President that killed ten people anyways is not like “every other incident,” Andrew. The Kip (contribs) 23:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Al-Shabaab have tried to assassinate him several times before. If they succeed then maybe it's significant but yet another failure is not. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Source?
- Al-Shabaab have tried to assassinate him several times before. If they succeed then maybe it's significant but yet another failure is not. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- An attempted assasination of the sitting President that killed ten people anyways is not like “every other incident,” Andrew. The Kip (contribs) 23:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also,
If they succeed then maybe it's significant
- you’ve absolutely got to be kidding me. In what world is the assassination of a sitting, internationally-recognized President not significant? I’ve had my disagreements with your logic before but this is on a wholly different level. The Kip (contribs) 23:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)- To be fair, our article lists 2012, 2013, and 2014 attempts, with the only apparent fatalities being 8 in 2012. Technically several times, but this is the most deadly and after a 10-year gap. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Patar knight I'm clarifying successful assassinations - Andrew seemed to imply that Mohamud actually getting killed by Al-Shabaab would only "maybe" be notable, which is an utterly absurd premise. The Kip (contribs) 02:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Notability requires coverage by independent and reliable sources. There are many hypothetical scenarios in which such an event is so chaotic or shrouded in doubt that we are unable to report it with any certainty. The remaining Gaza hostages are rather like this as it seems likely that many are dead but it's not clear.
- And it's interesting to note that the Kennedy assassination is still the subject of debate and getting lots of coverage and attention currently. If you use Google news searching for the the word "assassination", you'll find many current stories about Kennedy but not so much about Somalia. That's what's notable and in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to interpret “in the news” as what’s in American news, Google results are relative to your location. For me in the UK it’s a mixture of JFK, MLK, Trump, and Gandhi. Undoubtedly you’d get different results if you were searching from East Africa. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- I'm in the UK too. My Google News search is nothing but JFK until the third page of results when some references to a computer game start appearing. Google's algorithm may involve more than geography but perhaps our search parameters were different. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to interpret “in the news” as what’s in American news, Google results are relative to your location. For me in the UK it’s a mixture of JFK, MLK, Trump, and Gandhi. Undoubtedly you’d get different results if you were searching from East Africa. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Patar knight I'm clarifying successful assassinations - Andrew seemed to imply that Mohamud actually getting killed by Al-Shabaab would only "maybe" be notable, which is an utterly absurd premise. The Kip (contribs) 02:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- To be fair, our article lists 2012, 2013, and 2014 attempts, with the only apparent fatalities being 8 in 2012. Technically several times, but this is the most deadly and after a 10-year gap. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also,
- By logic, If leader al-Burhan, prime minister Netanyahu or president Zelenskyy survives an assassination attempt, the attacks would already being covered by its respective ongoing wars. ArionStar (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Zelenskyy has been subjected to six separate Russian assassination attempts, so he's an exception since they're happening so frequently. al-Burhan has only had one. Scuba 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I said "attacks", not reports of plans. Attempted assassination of Abdel Fattah al-Burhan happened before I showed up here. ArionStar (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- If they posted WP:ITN before but are not posting this, it seems like a double standard. QalasQalas (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Zelenskyy has been subjected to six separate Russian assassination attempts, so he's an exception since they're happening so frequently. al-Burhan has only had one. Scuba 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ten people died, Andrew. It's not like nothing happened. BilboBeggins (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing special for Somalia. The number of deaths in such incidents in Somalia last year was 6,206 which is 17 per day. We just posted another such Somali incident briefly and it got next to no readers. We could fill ITN with nothing but Somali violence but that's what Ongoing is for. And this has been ongoing for decades. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- What’s notable here was that the president was nearly assassinated. The United States had 19,000 murders in 2023, and a higher murder rate per 100,000 people than Somalia in 2015 (when we last had data), yet I assume we still posted Trump’s assassination attempt. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's nothing special for Somalia. The number of deaths in such incidents in Somalia last year was 6,206 which is 17 per day. We just posted another such Somali incident briefly and it got next to no readers. We could fill ITN with nothing but Somali violence but that's what Ongoing is for. And this has been ongoing for decades. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- By logic, If leader al-Burhan, prime minister Netanyahu or president Zelenskyy survives an assassination attempt, the attacks would already being covered by its respective ongoing wars. ArionStar (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support an attempt on the life of a head of state that also caused collateral casualties. Scuba 00:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability – assassination attempt on a head of state, the fact that it happened in Sub-Saharan Africa doesn't make it any less notable, and we shouldn't cave in to systemic bias. Also, I'm strongly doubting the claim that these happen "daily". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Way too little content at this point for what should be a significant event. Masem (t) 00:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Still not ready. There are three sentences specifically related to the event, the rest is background and the reactions section kudzu that doesn't help explain the event further. Way too little practical content here. Masem (t) 12:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Attempted assassination of a world leader, regardless of what country he's the leader of Dyaquna (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait, but support on notability. The article is still quite murky and short on details. Attempted assassination of a head of state, especially with double digit fatalities should be posted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per above now more significant UK and Ukraine condemned the attack Idil News and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres ABC
- QalasQalas (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- oppose If they didn't miss then it is notable, unfortunately for the newsfeed they missed.Sportsnut24 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, quality seems good enough now, can be improved further though
- Kowal2701 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support The only pressing issue here was quality which has been resolved. Gotitbro (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- There are only three sentences on the actual event, the rest a massive background and excessive reaction section. This does not exemplify the quality we look for in new news articles. Masem (t) 16:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine to me. Comment can we have a shorter blurb, and use a more current picture of president Hassan, like the one in the article? Khuft (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- The blurb has vital infos. ArionStar (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Stephen Patar knight Andrew Davidson The Kip Arab League Countries Anadolu Agency QalasQalas (talk) 06:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Somalia is hardly a bastion of peace - that violent things happen in violent countries is not notable. That doesn't mean this can't reach a level to be worthy of posting but it has to be backed by a particularly solid article. In this case I'm not seeing it. Firstly, look at the article - look, don't read: there are a lot of single line paragraphs there which instantly raises alarms bells - articles that follow that pattern are frequently a random collection of facts rather than a coherent piece of writing that develops and explores the topic at hand. Reading the article confirms that to me - it has that "bang bang" feel - "here's a fact, now here's another" - there is little sense of the topic developing as the article progresses. Indeed I note that the Attack section that actually discusses the nominal subject of the article rather than background or aftermath is at the time of writing three sentences long. 3142 (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Per Masem above, the article only has 3 sentences about the event itself; IMO this is insufficient depth and quality. SpencerT•C 21:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Proposing shorter altblurb1 Khuft (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per 3142. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Alt1. Schwede66 01:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Wlamir Marques
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (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.
ArionStar (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article is orange-tagged for lacking citations, and at least one of the existing ones is a dead link. The Kip (contribs) 03:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Antonio Gasalla
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (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.
ArionStar (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Article seems solid enough, and it's fully sourced, but some of the sources seem not the most reliable at first glance. The Kip (contribs) 03:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I have replaced all the weak sources (blogs, databases, etc) with newspaper articles. Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Abu Ishaq al-Houweny
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Egypt Today AJ Arabic
Credits:
- Nominated by MT-710 (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
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 needs a lot of work. MT(710) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom article needs better work
- QalasQalas (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as a stub. Biographical content is currently only “he was born and then he died.” The Kip (contribs) 19:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's now been expanded, but it's both mostly uncited and filled with WP:PUFFERY language. The Kip (contribs) 19:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Kip. Cannot be posted in this current state. Natg 19 (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose and question why this article even exists. Scuba 00:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Scu ba He's got a fairly long article on the Arabic Wikipedia (hence the header expansion tag), but it also seems mostly unsourced. The Kip (contribs) 02:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Attack on Gaza Strip
[edit]![]() | You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:
|
Blurb: Israel launches a surprise attack on the Gaza Strip, killing more than 400 Palestinians. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Israel launches an unexpected attack on the Gaza Strip, reportedly killing more than 400 Palestinians and ending the Gaza war ceasefire before its expiration.
News source(s): TIME, Al-Jazeera
Credits:
- Nominated by Vice regent (talk · give credit)
- Created by Noble Attempt (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: While Gaza war should probably be placed in ongoing, a single event that kills 300400 people is notable in its own right. This should be evaluated independently of the ongoing nom below. VR (Please ping on reply) 06:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Also the Gaza war main article should be added back to the ongoing 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support This single event is notable. Pachu Kannan (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, maybe state that this attack puts an end to the ceasefire. — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 06:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, a very important event. IDB.S (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support sad to hear that the ceasefire has been broken. Natg 19 (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support reported by most if not all sources Loqiical (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The blurb and article take the position that this was a "surprise attack" and blame Israel for breaking the ceasefire. My impression is that there is fault on both sides and the resumption of fighting is not surprising. As this is a contentious topic, we must be quite rigorous in establishing an even-handed, NPOV statement. As the conflict has been ongoing for some time, putting the entry back in Ongoing would be the easiest way of doing that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: - you cited this Associated Press report in your 11:59, 18 March comment below. The AP report you cited says in its first paragraph:
The surprise bombardment, the deadliest in Gaza since the start of the 17-month war, shattered a ceasefire in place since January.
starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC) - Seems that the AP report has now been rephrased, rendering that quote obsolete. But, another AP report says:
The surprise wave of airstrikes plunged Palestinians back into a nightmare they had hoped might be behind them.
starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: - you cited this Associated Press report in your 11:59, 18 March comment below. The AP report you cited says in its first paragraph:
- Support: Saying that Israel launched a surprise attack does not violate NPOV because, regardless of one's opinion on who's at fault, Israel did launch a surprise attack. MT(710) 09:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The BBC's extensive live coverage doe not use the word "surprise" or characterise it in this way. The attacks seem very similar to many previous attacks and, as the ceasefire talks had stalled and the parties are intransigent, seem quite unsurprising. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The BBC has been accused of having a pro-Israel slant in its coverage of this conflict, including by its own staff, so it really shoulsn't be cited to justify NPOV. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 11:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Refusal to accept a respectable source such as the BBC demonstrates why this topic is so toxic and intractable. Consider this AP report. This states that "Many Palestinians said they had expected a return to war when talks over the second phase of the ceasefire did not begin as scheduled in early February. ... But since that ceasefire ended two weeks ago, the sides have not been able to agree on a way forward with a second phase aimed at releasing the 59 remaining hostages" So, the first phase of the ceasefire expired weeks ago and, as the second phase has not been agreed, hostilities have resumed as expected. How is this surprising? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The umbrage was with you saying "well this source that has come under increasing scrutiny for violating its own neutrality rules says" to make your point, not the statement that the attack in hindsight was unsurprising. Had you started out with the AP source and the body of text cited, there would not be any issue. Anyway Support blurb Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 12:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- A general sense of depair for a complete breakdown of ceasefire does not really speak about the unexpected nature of this attack.
- And sources can be reliable while still being biased. The war has been going for more than a year now and the divergence of coverage between media sources and scholarly literature would be apparent to anyone who has followed these sources. BBC's bias does not mean that it is to be rejected outright but its neutrality or lack thereof should be questioned especially in such contexts. Gotitbro (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
the divergence of coverage between media sources and scholarly literature
- Not to fully dispute your point, but what this tells me is that media and scholars have different biases, not simply that the media is biased. It’d be wise to treat no sources around such a contentious conflict, even scholars, as truly unbiased, or at least those with any degree of subjectivity in conclusions - some things with hard numbers are straightforward. The Kip (contribs) 05:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, sources can be biased but there is a reason secondary [scholarly] sources are preferred to primary news reports on enwiki wherever possible. Reliability and bias different things, and we are as biased as our sources secondary sources are. No one is disputing the reliability of the BBC here but the siginificant criticism it has received for its coverage of this conflict (including internal dissension) is something that indeed needs to be given due consideration if undue weightage is being assigned to it to argue contentious points. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Refusal to accept a respectable source such as the BBC demonstrates why this topic is so toxic and intractable. Consider this AP report. This states that "Many Palestinians said they had expected a return to war when talks over the second phase of the ceasefire did not begin as scheduled in early February. ... But since that ceasefire ended two weeks ago, the sides have not been able to agree on a way forward with a second phase aimed at releasing the 59 remaining hostages" So, the first phase of the ceasefire expired weeks ago and, as the second phase has not been agreed, hostilities have resumed as expected. How is this surprising? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The BBC's extensive live coverage doe not use the word "surprise" or characterise it in this way. The attacks seem very similar to many previous attacks and, as the ceasefire talks had stalled and the parties are intransigent, seem quite unsurprising. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support deadly casualties plus Israel broke the ceasefire. QalasQalas (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Posted the ceasefire, naturally follows that we post its breakdown as well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support Post it right now. ArionStar (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support due to many deaths. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The death toll is a number attributed to the Gaza Health org (as I am seeing worded in the news reports), so like with the Sudanese massacre a few days ago, the blurb should at least have some type of clarification that the death toll is a claim. Masem (t) 12:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- There is a consensus for the reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry's figures and they have been treated as such. The "claim" terminology should only become operative if they are substantially disputed in this instance, which doesn't appear to be the case as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support --cyrfaw (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, and I agree that the GHM is reliable enough that we don't need to attribute it in the blurb, but I do agree with questions about whether this is a "surprise attack", because as far as I can tell, the actual cease-fire ended on March 1, and this strike came after negotiations to extend it repeatedly went nowhere. But regardless, our article does not call it a surprise attack — it says only that it was
described as a "surprise attack"
, which I don't think is strong enough for us to put that claim in WP:WIKIVOICE on the Main Page. DecafPotato (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)- Support DragonFire’s proposed altblurb per DecafPotato’s reasoning. The Kip (contribs) 18:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- ALT1: Israel launches an attack on the Gaza Strip, killing more than 400 Palestinians.
- Support, possibly with ALT1 to avoid concerns about
surprise
and to provide an updated death toll (Reuters). TheDragonFire (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Regarding "surprise" - international news sources, Israeli news sources, and even the Israeli military say it was a surprise attack. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The Independent - full statement from the Israeli military ... "The preemptive offensive plan was kept in closed circles in the IDF to create an element of surprise and deception"
- Associated Press - "surprise wave of airstrikes plunged Palestinians back into a nightmare they had hoped might be behind them."
- NPR - "surprise wave of overnight strikes"
- Le Monde - "The surprise attack shattered a period of relative calm"
- Axios - "The Israeli official ... said the IDF kept the operational plan top secret within a relatively small circle in order to surprise Hamas."
- The Times of Israel - "Israel’s surprise attack on the Gaza Strip, which ended a two-month ceasefire."
- Israel Hayom - "Military officials confirm the plan to resume combat operations was deliberately kept compartmentalized to create a tactical surprise that Hamas was unprepared to counter ... the surprise offensive"
- Israel National News "the surprise attack in the Gaza Strip."
- Jerusalem Post (Israeli news source) "The surprise attack was kept a secret even among most levels of the IDF to maximize the element of surprise."
- ynetnews.com (Israeli news source) "Military officials said the surprise attack ... The IDF said ... a surprise attack"
Hope that the above addresses the concerns about "surprise". starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe "unexpected"? ArionStar (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not perfect but not opposed either. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - major development in Israel-Palestine conflict. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per others, with either "surprise" or "unexpected" being fine, IMO. Per starship.paint, multiple RS describe the event as being a "surprise attack", but on the other hand, per Andrew, AP reports on a general resumption of hostilities as having been expected by Palestinians. Regardless, this is a significant and tragic development in the Gaza War. ArkHyena (it/its) 17:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support ALT1 More precise and also includes relevant context about the end of the ceasefire agreement, which I think is a big part of the story. I'm also fine if "surprise" is used instead of "unexpected", but I think the blurb should include that this effectively ends the ceasefire agreement as ALT1 does. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - surprise in blurb is simplest. I'd be tempted to note ceasefire violation, given the very unexpected and particular brutal attack. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, and "surprised" in blurb is consistent with RS. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support A blurb is preferable to simply putting the war back in ongoing, based on the 'renewal' of hostilities marked by this event. It is also a single incident of large-scale warfare, in comparison to the large-overall but smaller day-by-day nature of the war itself. As for the wording, "surprise" per RS - and because we could probably all say we expected hostilities to resume, but perhaps not in this surprising way. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per others. Seems like a near-universal consensus to post; what's the holdup? Morgan695 (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted by Patar knight, 23:29, 18 March 2025. Natg 19 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I used a modified version of ALT1, since most commenters noted the end of the ceasefire as a key element. I avoided using "surprise" or "unexpected" since our article and the sources here largely referred to "surprise" in the context of operational secrecy rather than this particular outcome being unexpected or particularly deceitful. Usage generally by RS while common was also not so high that it would be an essential descriptor. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Good blurb! ArionStar (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- While I think the current blurb works fine, would like to note that sources noting military secrecy also allude/refer to how unexpected this attack was. Ceasefire talks still being seriously considered (at least in the media) till this point. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- And this is what the lead of our article says at this time: "On 18 March 2025, Israel launched a surprise attack on the Gaza Strip effectively ending the 2025 Gaza war ceasefire. Israel's attack killed more than 400 Palestinians, including 263 women and children, making it the deadliest day for Palestinians in the Gaza war, according to the Gaza Health Ministry." Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I endorse Patar knight's perceptive posting as I was thinking myself that the surprise was tactical/operational rather than political/strategic. Isarel's focus seems to be eliminating the remaining Hamas leadership and it seems that about 5 of them were killed in those strikes. The BBC reports that "
Netanyahu calls strikes on Gaza 'only the beginning'
" and so the war is ongoing again. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I used a modified version of ALT1, since most commenters noted the end of the ceasefire as a key element. I avoided using "surprise" or "unexpected" since our article and the sources here largely referred to "surprise" in the context of operational secrecy rather than this particular outcome being unexpected or particularly deceitful. Usage generally by RS while common was also not so high that it would be an essential descriptor. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
(Ready) Ongoing: Gaza war
[edit]![]() | You are subject to additional rules when you edit this page. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing:
|
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:
- Nominated by Loqiical (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: resumption of hostilities Loqiical (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- full credit to RockinJack18 (original nominator), and Monk of Monk Hall, Pachu Kannan and Cdjp1 as some of the major contributors of the past month Loqiical (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support The ceasefire is clearly over and Israel's bombardment of the Gaza strip has resumed. We can wait for another day if we want, to see if there is a sudden reversal and somehow Hamas and Israel agree to enter Phase 2. But that strikes me as unlikely to happen anytime soon, given the sheer death toll of Israel's strikes (200+). FlipandFlopped ツ 05:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- This comment was before the blurb was nominated; agree with below that we should wait for blurb to roll off, then we can add it. FlipandFlopped ツ 00:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support The truce is clearly over. Pachu Kannan (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support: The ceasefire is over. IDB.S (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support but wait like 12 hours just to make sure it’s a full invasion Ion.want.uu (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, but wait: If the blurb nom above gets posted, I think it's best to wait for that to roll off before re-adding this entry to ongoing. MT(710) 09:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support The ceasefire ended, and the article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Don't know how to feel learning about this major news update via Wikipedia ping. But, considering RS like The Guardian are saying "Israel shatters Gaza ceasefire", seems enough to bring it to this section of Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support as the ceasefire expires. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support --cyrfaw (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait We are likely to post the recent high death toll as a blurb, better wait for it to roll-off before proceeding. Gotitbro (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support the ceasefire was over and the article widely covered, WP:ITN.
*Weak oppose. I'd wait until there is a renewed campaign for a few more days, since stuff like this always happens during ceasefires. 675930s (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support: It's a new offensive. Scuba 13:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait — Since the blurb for the recent Israeli attack is almost certain to be posted, we should wait until it rolls off to add the war to ongoing. DecafPotato (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sadly support. ArionStar (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support but hold off posting until after the blurb on the Gaza attack rolls off the main page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait The attack blurb will be posted, but we have no idea if this was a one time thing or if hostilities will continue. If the former, reading this to ongoing makes no sense. Masem (t) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait per DecafPotato and Masem. The blurb above will cover it for at least a few days, during which we’ll likely get an answer whether this was a one-off attack or a full resumption of the war. The Kip (contribs) 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait For blurb to roll off. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for the current blurb to roll off, post assuming there is no new agreement, and add the most recent timeline article similar to how it was before it was removed (currently, Timeline of the Gaza war (19 January 2025 – present), but subject to change). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support We included it before and it needs to be re-added due to the fact that the ceasefire is no longer here. Yes.Jayson (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Ongoing: 2025 Shabelle offensive
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5]
Credits:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Offensive started late Feb. Bremps... 18:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The article does have impressive and detailed day-to-day coverage, which many articles fail to achieve under WP:ONGOING. However, almost all of the coverage is from local or relatively obscure sources. To merit an ongoing placement on the Main page, we'd need to see consistent coverage from a global array of prominent reliable sources. There are a few sources of this type cited in the target article, but these are mostly about tangential issues and not the offensive itself (e.g. BBC articles about Trump's foreign policy in Somalia, or the Somali President meeting with a foreign leader). FlipandFlopped ツ 19:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose although the article is being updated at a rapid rate, it is almost solely by User:RowanJ LP and therefore, I believe, it fails WP:ONGOING. Scuba 01:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 02:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose ongoing Per Flipandflopped. SpencerT•C 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
March 17
[edit]
March 17, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: AnNa R.
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Brisant
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Refsworldlee (talk · give credit) and Time-is-wealth (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: German singer. article looks good aside from the discography Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
2025 Macedonian anti-corruption protests
[edit]Blurb: Anti-corruption protests erupt after a nightclub fire (damage pictured) in Kočani, North Macedonia, kills at least 59 people and injures more than 155 others. (Post)
News source(s): BBC News, ABC News, U.S. News, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Similar situation to the Serbian anti-corruption protests after the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. Protest have turned violent, and no they haven't resulted in a change of government but several local officials have been arrested. Obviously this if posted should replace the current post regarding the tragedy. The 4 sources in this nomination can be used to expand the article as slightly short at the moment. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait to see if the protests are enduringly notable and have continued coverage, or if this was just a one-off rally in protest of the incompetence surrounding the fire. Lots of accidents and natural disasters will attract criticism and backlash against those responsible, but for something like a fire or rooftop collapse, we'd want to see it transforming into an enduring protest movement for it to meet the ITN threshold. FlipandFlopped ツ 17:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted to RD; blurb discussion ongoing) RD/Blurb: John Hemingway (RAF officer)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: John "Paddy" Hemingway (pictured), the last of The Few, dies at 105 (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Daily Telegraph, Irish Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Ad Orientem (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Last surviving pilot of the WWII Battle of Britain. He was shot down four times during the war. Lived to be 105. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support- I expanded this a good bit a few years so it would be ready for ITNRD when the time came. Glad he ended up living a good bit longer :). -Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support The article is in great shape and certainly ready for ITN. Thank you for your service sir. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Blurb - the last of The Few, we should mark his passing with a blurb. Mjroots (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ad Orientem, Eddie891, and The C of E:. Your thoughts on a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I would Support blurb given how historic this is. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Ad Orientem, Eddie891, and The C of E:. Your thoughts on a blurb? Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb as per Mjroots :675930s (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb A blurb is a good idea as just posting his name without any context at RD would be literally meaningless. The article could use some expansion but I'll help out with that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support sad tho that we’re at this point that the ww2 vets are starting to dwindle Ion.want.uu (talk) 08:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb this is a very anglo-centric view to make this into a news story; he was not the last WW2 veteran, and was one of many who took part in one of many WW2's notable battles. Crudely put, this is essentially WP:OLDMANDIES and is not a remarkable story; all of RD nominations are of notable persons since they have articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would also add this is very much a case of WP:1E; fine for RD but certainly not a blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- "Anglo-Centric" is a strange criticism to make on what's deemed newsworthy for an English-language website, never mind that he was Irish. Also, the Few are world-renowned for defeating the Germans in one of the biggest air campaigns in history, which is considered a turning point in the war. You can't call this an unremarkable story in any good faith. 675930s (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would also add this is very much a case of WP:1E; fine for RD but certainly not a blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: "Anglo-centric"? People of many nations were members of The Few. Hemingway himself was Irish. No claim that he was the last WWII veteran has been made. The passing of the last of The Few, as well as the last D-Day veteran, should be properly honoured, as should the passing of the last WWII veteran. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- The vast majority of The Few were from anglophone countries, i.e. former British Empire. I stand by my comment, and blurbing this will would be to pander to anglophone patriotic sentiments, not because this gentleman's death is encyclopedicly more notable than the many other RD nominations. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Abcmaxx: "Anglo-centric"? People of many nations were members of The Few. Hemingway himself was Irish. No claim that he was the last WWII veteran has been made. The passing of the last of The Few, as well as the last D-Day veteran, should be properly honoured, as should the passing of the last WWII veteran. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb - At this point, the "western bias" is just being used to oppose anything related to the west. EF5 12:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD No one would suggest we post every pilot of this group who died, so the exception here is solely due to him outliving the others. This is not typically a valid reason to blurb. Maybe we would post the last known WWII vet as an exception, but the last vet of a subset of a subset of a subset is an unusual suggestion. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support for blurb (I'm the OP) It is true we do not typically post last survivors of individual battles, but this is a bit different. The battle of Britain was not so much a battle as a prolonged campaign of both military and terror bombing. One where not just the war, but the survival of civilization itself hung in the balance. This was the only point where Hitler really was on the cusp of winning the war. If not for this man and the other "Few" I do not care to think about what the world would look like today. Yeah, I think that warrants notice at ITN. That aside, I believe consensus exists that this is at least ready for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support blurb I think this just about rises to the levels needed for ITN. And whilst it's a sad story, it is at least not a disaster, weather issue, space probe, mass killing or an election. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb neither meets death as the news topic, nor as a major figure. This is literally old man (who happened to outlast thousands of others that fought in WW2) dies". Masem (t) 15:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb, not a WW2 major figure. ArionStar (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support blurb - per Ad Orientem
- Weak support blurb I think Ad Orientem summed it up well and I echo his rationale. FlipandFlopped ツ 19:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Ad Orientem. The Kip (contribs) 21:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb the last of a group to die is not blurb-worthy imho. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb – yes, he took part in an important battle, but can we really say he was anywhere close to a transformative person in his field? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Remembering: Gene Hackman's blurb was pulled. ArionStar (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think there is a reasonable argument for answering "yes" to this if you consider his "field" to be World War Two veterans. He was a transformative person in his field insofar as he outlived his peers for so long, which caused him to become a sort of ambassador and symbolic figurehead of WW2 veterans for many years. His transformative nature is intertwined with the fact that he lived for so long. FlipandFlopped ツ 01:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- One-sentence update that's not redundant to the blurb. This inarguably does not meet the blurb criteria. —Cryptic 22:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb can't see how he meets any of the criteria at WP:ITNRDBLURB. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Ready as RD ArionStar (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD Quality looks fine for RD standards. Oppose blurb on quality and significance He's not actually a major figure nor did his death itself have any notable qualities. Regardless, the update on the article is too brief and doesn't meet our requirements for blurbs. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. Blurb discussion ongoing. SpencerT•C 15:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Ad Orientem, whose reasoning I find convincing. Jusdafax (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb for the reasoning seen above. 675930s (talk) 06:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb on notability "last of" is something circumstantial and not ITN-worthy. He was not a major WW2 figure. Posted in RD is more than enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb per Ad Orientem. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. A country's last WWII veteran is one thing, but will we post the last survivor of Pearl Harbor? D-Day? Leningrad? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, why not? 675930s (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Blurb transformative figures are not limited to talent in a field. It’s for extraordinary work where the fate of mankind’s future is at big stake. He did a lot on that end. DrewieStewie (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Looks like Wikipedia is only considering a blurb because he is the last living person of a group, but none in that group would qualify for a blurb as transformative in their field. It would be different if he was the commander in chief or the oldest man in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.200.168 (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Naseer Soomro
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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.
Pakistan's tallest man. Ainty Painty (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready It's a stub. I also have some WP:1E concerns. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Lee Shau-kee
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RTHK
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:E096:1180:9609:128C (talk · give credit)
- Updated by HaydenWong (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: Hong Kong business magnate, founder of Henderson Land Development. 240F:7A:6253:1:E096:1180:9609:128C (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support Article quality does not wow me. But I think it is barely adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Business career section needs to be converted to prose, with additional depth (not just a list of positions). SpencerT•C 17:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Ecological disaster in Zambia
[edit]Blurb: In Zambia, a dam breach contaminates Kafue River with 50 million liters of acidic waste, causing major ecological damage in the region. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In Zambia, a dam at a Chinese-owned copper factory collapses, contaminating the country's most important river with 50 million liters of acidic waste.
News source(s): AP, MSN,
Credits:
- Nominated by Trepang2 (talk · give credit)
Trepang2 (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Looks like a major, life-changing disaster for the country, with local residents and ecologists saying things like "The river died in a single day." The article may need more details and pictures. Trepang2 (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it seems that the event happened on Feb 18, about 1 month ago. Unsure why AP is reporting on this so late. Natg 19 (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Al Jazeera had a good on-the-spot report six days ago. The area has a long history of such pollution from the mining industry [6], [7]. So it goes... As the story seems too stale for ITN, DYK should be considered while the article is still new. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I consider this very significant but unfortunately it is just far too stale to be posted now. Not sure why western news sources have taken a whole month to catch on to this. --SpectralIon 03:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The current story appears to be more about the coverup by the Chinese corporation rather than the disaster itself. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support. The dam collapse by itself might be stale, but disaster is ongoing and worsens with time, thus not stale, especially given that it's only just being properly reported by media. As for article quality, I believe it's adequate for ITN already. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Considering its long-term effects, might it be better to nominate this for Ongoing instead? ArkHyena (it/its) 17:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ongoing requires consistent updates.
Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article. In general, articles are not posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.
Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC) - There's no real information on what long-term impacts would be. It's not a particularly large volume of liquid - 50,000 m³. Compare to the 35,200,000,000 m³ in Lake Mead (Hoover dam). Stating the number in Litres just makes it sound very big. And what's the waste - the article is very unclear. Acidic water? It will flush through - presumably quickly the local rainfall. How acidic? It could buffer quickly. Definitely not ongoing. I don't know it's even notable enough, given the lack of human deaths. Seems pretty minor compared to say the (equally underdiscussed) ecological disaster in the Hudson River. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ongoing requires consistent updates.
- Considering its long-term effects, might it be better to nominate this for Ongoing instead? ArkHyena (it/its) 17:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The collapse itself happened a month ago, making it stale, and the ongoing aftereffects aren't really a "ITN blurb" thing unless there's a singular moment of elevated importance. The Kip (contribs) 03:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
March 16
[edit]
March 16, 2025
(Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
|
RD: Arvind Singh Mewar
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by WikiWhizKid1999 (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 some work Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Émilie Dequenne
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Le Monde [8]
Credits:
- Nominated by GreatCaesarsGhost (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.
GreatCaesarsGhost 20:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose several statements, such as date/place of birth are unsourced + entire awards/filmography section is unsourced; there are also unreliable sources used. This will need fixing Jaguarnik (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Jesse Colin Young
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Rolling Stone, The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:B959:F65C:EEA8:F330 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Zade Scrivner (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: Member and lead vocal of The Youngbloods. 240F:7A:6253:1:B959:F65C:EEA8:F330 (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Article is substantial and looks in pretty good shape, apart from a few unsourced sentences and the usual unsourced albums. An often overlooked and underrated musician. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Stuart Young sworn in
[edit]Blurb: Stuart Young succeeds Keith Rowley to become the next Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago after being elected by the People's National Movement parliamentary caucus, following the resignation of Prime Minister Keith Rowley. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Stuart Young (pictured) is elected by the People's National Movement parliamentary caucus to succeed Keith Rowley as Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago following Rowley’s resignation.
Alternative blurb II: Following the resignation of Keith Rowley, Stuart Young (pictured) is chosen by the People's National Movement parliamentary caucus to become the next Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.
News source(s): Trinidad and Tobago Newsday, The Gleaner,
Credits:
- Nominated by 744cody (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.
744cody (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Being a head of government, I support. Small countries deserve a blurb too. ArionStar (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Change of PM is justified under WP:ITNR. The article seems well written and blurb-worthy. 20:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support This looks okay I think. Secretlondon (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support: Well sourced article. Head of state changes are always notable enough regardless of country size. Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Marking as ready, due to the support TNM101 (chat) 17:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per above. FlipandFlopped ツ 05:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Fails WP:ITNUPDATE with insufficient update. Was he the only candidate? If not, what were the election results? Why him?—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: maybe acclamation? ArionStar (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per above cyrfaw (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support obvious INTR. Scuba 01:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Rm "ready"; insufficient prose update in the article. Article at present states just "He replaced Dr Keith Rowley on 17 March 2025 to become Trinidad and Tobago's 8th Prime Minister." and Rowley's article does not mention his resignation. Were there circumstances that led up to this? SpencerT•C 17:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) Kočani nightclub fire
[edit]Blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) during a concert in Kočani, North Macedonia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At least 59 people are killed and more than 155 injured in a nightclub fire (remains of the nightclub pictured) in Kočani, North Macedonia.
News source(s): BBC, CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)
- Created by No Swan So Fine (talk · give credit)
- Updated by JustAnAlbo (talk · give credit), Andrew012p (talk · give credit) and Kiril Simeonovski (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is one or the deadliest incidents in the country’s history, and the story receives front-page media coverage globally. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait on quality Ah, you just beat me to the nomination! I think the article needs to be expanded just a bit TNM101 (chat) 11:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to Support, article has been expanded and cited TNM101 (chat) 17:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support article's in good shape, no longer a stub and will doubtless expand as further information comes to light. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- North Macedonia If I ever see someone starting some indoor pyrotechnics, I'll be running for the exit as they often end badly. Anyway, the detail that catches my eye is describing the country as Macedonia rather than North Macedonia, which is controversial – see Macedonia naming dispute. And we don't usually link country names, right? Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article has expanded enough and is in good shape JustAnAlbo (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality While what's there is sufficient there are several unsourced paragraphs. Likely with more sourcing the article can be fleshed out more. Masem (t) 12:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support article's in good shape No.cilepogača (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment There are no unreferenced paragraphs any more.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Its still a bit thin (under 10k prose), and I would expect more coverage of what aftermath events there, particularly with the arrest warrants being issued. Masem (t) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Makes sense. That should go in a new section. I’m also looking for free pictures. Let’s wait for a few more hours.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- "Investigation" section has been added with relevant information available in reliable sources. I'm struggling to find free pictures, but the article should now be ready for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Its still a bit thin (under 10k prose), and I would expect more coverage of what aftermath events there, particularly with the arrest warrants being issued. Masem (t) 14:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article of sufficient quality & sources cited. Interim22 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Suuport one of world's worst nightclub tragedies. ArionStar (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient now, appears thoroughly sourced and close to 20k bytes. Absolutely horrible tragedy. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 00:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment We pipe Macedonia to North Macedonia throughout the article. The name of the country was contested with the Greek province of Macedonia so I think we need to be more careful. Secretlondon (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Munir Shakir
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 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) 01:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Article body could use additional depth, and information in the lede (e.g. info on Pashtun Jirga) is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. SpencerT•C 16:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
March 15
[edit]
March 15, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Lenny Schultz
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: article needs some slight work Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Aside from one minor cn tag, this is ready to post. Jusdafax (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Television appearances section is unreferenced. SpencerT•C 17:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Malcolm F. Marsh
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.fjc.gov/node/1384336
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Snickers2686 (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: Article looks good Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Fully referenced, adequate depth of coverage. SpencerT•C 16:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Alex Daoud
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Local 10
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Nuitetjour (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: might be good? i'm unsure Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Mayoral career section mostly discussed bribery cases; is there any additional info about what he accomplished as mayor besides the bribery? SpencerT•C 16:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Peter Bichsel
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FAZ
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Grimes2 (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: Swiss short story writer Grimes2 (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support, noting that Bichsel was not merely a short story writer, but probably Switzerland's most prominent and influential contemporary writer. Article is in an OK state, but could be much expanded. Sandstein 15:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Can the short intro be a little longer, please? Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Slick Watts
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bagumba (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.
Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 17:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
RD: Nita Lowey
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Too-Rye-Ay (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 a little work. Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) US strikes on Yemen
[edit]Blurb: In Yemen, 53 are killed and 98 injured after the United States launches large-scale air and naval strikes. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by Abo Yemen (talk · give credit)
- Created by TouchedWithFire (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: This is the most significant US military operation in the Middle East since Donald Trump took office, according to Reuters 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality This is an example of a poor quality news event article that is all too often the case with new event articles on WP - there's maybe three short paragraphs about the actual event, the meat of the story, that perhaps is only 10% of the prose of the article, the rest weighed by the background section. It doesn't need that much background, there's a reasons we have main/seealso templates. If anything, the background should be focused on why the Trump administration focused on the Houthi (which is tied to the admin's attitude towards Iran). I also note that the blurb here doesn't even mentiont the Houthi, which seems to be the specific target of the attacks (being military facilities held by the Houthi, there's no discussion of any Yemen civilans lost in the attack). Masem (t) 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Most of the victims are women and children which seemed to have not been there in this article (and I've added that now) but it is mentioned in the Reuters report 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support article's OK, although why the cites in the lead? See WP:CITELEAD. I imagine the main sections of the article will expand as further info comes to light. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is well sourced and couldn't be more relevant. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Afonso Dimas Martins. Jusdafax (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Major geopolitical development, along with deaths. --SpectralIon 03:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is ready, including major developments. --cyrfaw (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Per cyfraw, article seems ready and airstrike attacks on another country which are widely covered by RS seems pretty clearly notable. FlipandFlopped ツ 19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pull, this is a slight increase in a long-running conflict. Abductive (reasoning) 04:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
2025 South Korean political protests
[edit]Blurb: Thousands of South Koreans protest in rival political protests in favour of and against the re-arrest of impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol. (Post)
News source(s): France 24, Straits Times, AP
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The article definitely needs a WP:SIZESPLIT into a protest article given the complexity of this unfolding political drama; two impeachments, one arrest, multiple protests, constitutional and political and perhaps even societal crisis. Protests unusually large in scale although aware this has been an ongoing crisis as well. The article is still titled 2024 however there is no consensus how to split or incorporate the current events (from 2025) into the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Per the AP, these appear to be mostly peaceful protests, and thus just one of many protests that are happening due to various reasons across the globe. If anything, the story about Yoon Suk Yeol's release and re-arrest is really the headline here but that's relatively old news itself. also consider that there appears to be major overlap between the crisis and the impeachment article that is causing some of the size issues, it doesn't make sense to try to split off these protests (particularly since they aren't generated major conflict themselves) before the duplicated material is removed and some attemtp to eliminate the proseline is handled. Masem (t) 12:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Protests don't have to violent to be posted. I would argue that the size and scale of the protests is the significant part here. As for the reorganisation of the article; many different options can be debated but in its current form it's just too long and convoluted and would ideally be resolved with wider consensus regardless of ITN. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- No, but given how long these have been going for, without neither any real change at the gov't level nor any type of violent action means this is just mostly noise at the larger scale. Comparitively, something like the 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest which did have a direct impact (in terms of blocking roads and other similar non-violent acts) would be the type of protests that I think we should focus on for ITN, in addition to those that turn violent. — Masem (t) 20:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Protests don't have to violent to be posted. I would argue that the size and scale of the protests is the significant part here. As for the reorganisation of the article; many different options can be debated but in its current form it's just too long and convoluted and would ideally be resolved with wider consensus regardless of ITN. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Masem; not a defining crisis. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. I actually would support putting 2024 South Korean martial law crisis as Ongoing, as it seems like news keeps coming out about this. Natg 19 (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is just a foreshock of incoming decision about Yoon's impeachment by Constitutional Court of Korea. We can post the decision then. Didgogns (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Doesn't seem to hold special notability compared to the other aftershocks of the martial law declaration we've posted. The Kip (contribs) 02:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose + Close per above. This is an ongoing situation, and no one seems to be supporting this blurb. --SpectralIon 04:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
2024–present Serbian anti-corruption protests
[edit]Blurb: A four-month long anti-corruption protest culminates in the Serbian capital Belgrade. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, CNN, AP News, NY Times, Reuters, France 24
Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Looks to be the climax of this ongoing protest, reported worldwide. Very large in scale, especially factoring the size of the population; estimated 100,000 people at the protest. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I suppose "cumulates" should be "culminates" but such language claiming that this particular event is a decisive climax seem too WP:CRYSTAL. My impression is that the existing regime is unmoved and so it will take more to shift it. As this has been ongoing for months, we should consider an Ongoing entry. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Corrected to "culminates". Protests don't have to be successful nor finite for us to be able to post them. I would argue that 100,000 people out of a population of 6½ million is quite a feat given it's ~1.5% of the entire population. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment I'd also support ongoing instead. The article is documenting the chronology very well and is being constantly updated. Yesterday's protests were the biggest but they will keep going. --Tone 10:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality issues Overall these have been maybe large but seem to be mostly non-violent, but the biggest thing that stands out to me is the quality of the page. First, treating the protests using the infobox that is usually used for wars or armed conflict seems excessive and inappropriate, its framing the protests as a battle rather than being a mostly non-violent protest. Second, the bulk of the article is just proseline which is not at all helpful to try to understand the scale and scope of the event, and none which further supports some of the information in that infobox such as explaining the types of protests used or the police response. I know writing proseline as a start of an event may seem helpful to document it, but we should be able to do far better by this point with a narrative style to explain more how and why the protests developed and what reaction the Serbian govt has had to them in summary rather than day by day. Same applies to the list of people and countries/ctieis at the bottom, with that many people and names, its a sea of blue problem, and we should be trying to summarize these better. Masem (t) 12:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew Davidson and Masem: usual, common demonstrations against government, and the article lacks almost complete context. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support an Ongoing as these protests seem to be getting larger and larger as time goes on, with new news coming out of Serbia very often. Yesterday an estimated 20% of Serbia's population went out to Belgrade to protest, so this seems very notable. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support as a blurb, noted by BBC to be Serbia's largest-ever protest (a fact which should be included in a blurb). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – as these are really the largest (so far) in a series of ongoing mass demonstrations, it may be better to nominate this article for Ongoing. ArkHyena (it/its) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose until it results in a change of government. 675930s (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't find any proof that the protestors planned a culmination on that day, and thus this really shouldn't be a blurb. They could very well keep getting larger. I will of course support posting if Vucic resigns, and I'm neutral towards making this ongoing. --SpectralIon 03:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Three-part vote:
- Oppose on quality per Masem. I respect the detail, but the page is a wall of text right now and not easy to get a simple summation out of.
- Weak oppose on notability given some of the arguments above regarding "culmination" being informal.
- Support ongoing as that seems like a much more apt place for it to go right now.
- The Kip (contribs) 02:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) US Severe weather and wildfires
[edit]Blurb: At least 42 are killed by an intense storm system bringing heavy snow, blowing dust, wildfires, and tornadoes to much of the United States. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At least 42 are killed as a result of storms and tornadoes in the Midwest and southern United States
News source(s): CBS
Credits:
- Nominated by Departure– (talk · give credit)
- Created by EF5 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MarioProtIV (talk · give credit), Yobatna (talk · give credit), Wildfireupdateman (talk · give credit) and Timcigar12 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Might be a little early to nominate this and the article does need some heavy work which I'm willing to do over the coming hours. The storm is only halfway done, and later today into tomorrow it's expected to produce an even larger tornado outbreak than it already has. Departure– (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Wait for the potentially historic storm later today over AL and MS. Multiple fatalities and heavy damage are confirmed across several towns, but it’d be better to include the entire event. EF5 13:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- And I’d hardly call one of the largest moderate risks ever issued and the third-ever day 2 high risk “extremely common”. EF5 14:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Tylertown, Mississippi has been hit by at least two significant tornadoes and nineteen deaths have been confirmed; the event isn’t even at its peak yet. This is now the deadliest meteorological event in 2025; we posted the LA fires. EF5 20:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- And I’d hardly call one of the largest moderate risks ever issued and the third-ever day 2 high risk “extremely common”. EF5 14:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Welcome to spring in the Midwest. This type of system is extremely common at this time of year in that region and is definitely not unusual. If the results of the front that is supposed to hit later today in the southern states has a much more devasting impact, maybe there's a reason to reconsider, but not with what has happened so far. Masem (t) 13:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Masem: 13+ deaths? The first Day 2 high risk since 2012? Only the fifth high risk this decade (see List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days#2020–present)? You say "Extremely common" and "definitely not unusual", but I'm afraid this is more historic than ordinary. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Quick comment Not mentioned in the blurb, but the Windmill and 840 Road fire systems were spawned by this, each of which has reached >20,000 acres by now in the <24 hours they've existed. Three deaths were confirmed from blowing dust causing a car crash in Amarillo, Texas. That isn't counting the as-of-yet unknown death toll from last night's tornadoes, let alone those that might happen in the South this morning. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Mashing multiple different weather events together in regions where they are common doesn't exactly improve notability. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)- No prejudice against a nom on just the tornado outbreak alone, as it's shaping up to be a big one. But that would be the story itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- The specific problem with that is that this specific low pressure system was the cause or contributing factors to all of the aspects of the blurb. The tornado outbreak is likely to be the most impactful, however. Departure– (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I believe it would be most appropriate to recharacterize my perspective as a wait vote. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Moving to support based on latest damage data. I'd like us to wait some on more accurate fatality and damage information, but this really is looking quite nasty. Rolling Fork, MS looks like it just got hammered again. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I am partial to the altblurb for conciseness reasons. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Moving to support based on latest damage data. I'd like us to wait some on more accurate fatality and damage information, but this really is looking quite nasty. Rolling Fork, MS looks like it just got hammered again. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- No prejudice against a nom on just the tornado outbreak alone, as it's shaping up to be a big one. But that would be the story itself. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Wait until today's system ends.Changing to Support - pretty large death toll, major outbreak (although not a super outbreak). 3/31 was posted so I don't see how this is much different with multiple intense tors. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Inaccurate that it affects "much of the United States".—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pardon? It affected places from California, Texas, Minnesota, and is in the process of hitting areas of Alabama in the Deep South. Departure– (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- What? Many states are affected, including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, New Mexico. (dust clouds). I could continue, but thats “much” of the US. EF5 20:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would change the blurb to "Midwest and southern United States", as "much of the United States" is imprecise and the winter storms in the West are not directly related to tornadoes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- The winter storms are related to the storm system, though. Tornado outbreaks usually aren’t just tornadoes. EF5 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would change the blurb to "Midwest and southern United States", as "much of the United States" is imprecise and the winter storms in the West are not directly related to tornadoes. Natg 19 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is currently focused on the tornadoes, with some information about other effects. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- That would be for a RM, not ITN. EF5 15:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Then maybe the article title needs to be changed. It is currently focused on the tornadoes, with some information about other effects. Natg 19 (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Change my support to a proposal of Altblurb I think altblurb should be changed to "Midwest and southern United States" As Natg 19 proposed. Shaneapickle (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support -- 28+ dead now, and wildfires are being spawned from the wind. It's devastating. --RockstoneSend me a message! 01:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support Death toll now at 33. Article quality is adequate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose The article doesn't provide a clear historical narrative. I especially don't like its heavy use of alerts, forecasts and models rather than reports after the event. It describes the event as ongoing and so I suppose it's a compilation of such forward-looking as the stormy weather developed. There are also scope issues as this doesn't seem to be a named weather system like a cyclone. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- It is ongoing across the eastern seaboard. EF5 12:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew Davidson. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose on quality – The article contains many unsourced sections and contains many self-published sources from Twitter by users who may or may not be subject-matter experts. This excludes posts from official National Weather Service forecast offices. For example, what makes GeoTechWar a reliable source? – [9] The same goes for the "Daily Weather" – [10]; "VortixWx" – [11]; "Chris Fl Tornado" – [12]; The same especially goes for "Mike Justice"... Until these issues are fixed, I don't think this article is ready to be posted.Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Concerns have been addressed. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)- Does it look better now? I’ve removed (should be all) of the unreliable Twitter references (not including the NWS and SPC ones, those are considered reliable) and have removed most, if not all, of the uncited and quite CRUFTy material. I’m on mobile so I probably screwed something up. EF5 12:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- That actually looks better now. Based on the fact that: the entire storm system has caused widespread damage; that there's still ongoing coverage of the system; and that the quality concerns have been addressed (+ this fact also), I'm striking my oppose and now [Support] this nomination. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Does it look better now? I’ve removed (should be all) of the unreliable Twitter references (not including the NWS and SPC ones, those are considered reliable) and have removed most, if not all, of the uncited and quite CRUFTy material. I’m on mobile so I probably screwed something up. EF5 12:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The altblurb is inaccurate, as while the total death toll is 34, 12 of those were not as a direct result of a tornado and were caused by other aspects of the event. Departure– (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve boldly changed it to “storms and tornadoes”; there is zero reason to discount over half of the deaths from the event. EF5 15:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Counting all non-tornadic fatalities, this is now the deadliest tornado outbreak in the United States since the December 10, 2021 outbreak, at 34, now beyond the tolls of the March 24 (Rolling Fork) outbreak and the March 31 (Little Rock) outbreaks of 2023, as well as any outbreak of 2022 or 2024. Departure– (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- We posted December 10, right? I am on mobile and for some reason it mashes together talk page banners to the point where they’re unreadable. EF5 17:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- December 10, March 24, and March 31. Nothing in 2024 was posted. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah. I think I’ll go write a “weather as usual” essay on weather at ITN/C. This is definitely historic and by no means “ordinary”. I mean, this is deadlier than every event in 2024 and deadlier than the March 24 storm that was posted. EF5 19:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- December 10, March 24, and March 31. Nothing in 2024 was posted. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- We posted December 10, right? I am on mobile and for some reason it mashes together talk page banners to the point where they’re unreadable. EF5 17:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nothing extraordinary. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support per others. Per Departure, this is the deadliest tornadic event in the US in three years. Coverage of the system in media is still recent or ongoing (e.g. at ABC: [13] CBS: [14]). This is a historic event. ArkHyena (it/its) 20:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - First EF4 tornado since May 2024 was confirmed just a few minutes ago. This is the first time since May 20, 2013 that a tornado had a 190 mph preliminary wind speed; the 2013 one is currently recognized as (controversially) the most recent EF5 in history. EF5 20:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Clearly a major news story, and the article is well-sourced and written. Jusdafax (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Support In my humble opinion, I do believe that this event is notable and deserving of being featured due to the total destruction caused overall as well as the historic nature of this storm. CaptainGalaxy 22:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Support I am usually skeptical towards our imbalanced focus on American weather events relative to the rest of the world, but I acknowledge this is a recordbreaking (and thus unusual) event that has a fairly high death toll. 40+ people killed is quite high. FlipandFlopped ツ 04:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - should the 140 injuries from Oklahoma deserve a mention in the blurb? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment before posting: in the article, the death toll is 42, not 47. It could rise back to that toll but I believe the 47 toll was a misinterpretation by an RS. Departure– (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've revised it down to 42. EF5 17:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - can someone post this? Or not? --RockstoneSend me a message! 02:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{ITNA}}? EF5 12:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops. @Admins willing to post ITN: ? EF5 12:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that there are SIX things marked as ready for ITN (which can only hold 4 blurbs I believe), so IDK how this is gonna work. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Personally I’d post from oldest “readies” to newest to avoid old ones going stale, but the admins know what they’re doing. EF5 18:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that there are SIX things marked as ready for ITN (which can only hold 4 blurbs I believe), so IDK how this is gonna work. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops. @Admins willing to post ITN: ? EF5 12:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- {{ITNA}}? EF5 12:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Posted I shall note that it's not clear at all what to replace on the main page. If others would prefer for it to be done differently, please go ahead. I can't contribute to any discussion as I'll be offline for the next 8 hours. Schwede66 19:04, 18 March 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: