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.
August 23
[edit]
August 23, 2025
(Saturday)
Law and crime
|
August 22
[edit]
August 22, 2025
(Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Jaswinder Bhalla
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by QalasQalas (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: Famed Punjabi comedian QalasQalas (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Gaza Strip famine
[edit]Blurb: The United Nations declares famine in Gaza. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United Nations-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification confirms/declares famine in Gaza.
Alternative blurb II: The United Nations-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification confirms/declares famine in Gaza City.
News source(s): UNICEF, Guardian, NY Times, WaPo, BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by Gotitbro (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Stephan rostie (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Long expected. While we have ongoing for the war. This is notable beyond that and succintly summarizes what has been happening in the region since our last blurb on the war. Gotitbro (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Leaning support on notability I haven't read the article in depth; it's quite long and apparently comprehensive, but let's bear in mind that in its coverage of the Gaza war, Al Jazeera is considered an unreliable source and is cited in several lines and paragraphs, which makes me wonder to what extent it complies with the required neutrality, without detracting from its attempts to ensure it by Wiki editors. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Alsoriano97 AJ is considered biased but not unreliable in the context of the war - using them as a citation isn’t an issue. That said, for contentious claims/etc attribution and the addition of other RSes to back them up should be the standard. The Kip (contribs) 13:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @The Kip Okay, thank you for the clarification. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Alsoriano97 AJ is considered biased but not unreliable in the context of the war - using them as a citation isn’t an issue. That said, for contentious claims/etc attribution and the addition of other RSes to back them up should be the standard. The Kip (contribs) 13:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment Having the UN officially state something that most sources and rationale people have recognized for months seems not to be a major step, given we have that have the gaza strip ongoing already. Masem (t) 12:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There was a severe risk of famine but no international organization had explicitly declared it as such. Most sources were reporting on deliberate starvation rather than famine. This is the first major report by the FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF and various other UN agencies declaring famine (akin to a declaration of epidemic/pandemic by the WHO), per the well established Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Then another question is, what happens now? If its just a declaration that has no grounded impact, then this is all hot air. But if this directs UN nations to combat the famine by any means necessary, that would be different. Masem (t) 16:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Per the report, unless Israel allows aid in the famine will spread further and start resulting in mass deaths (edit: more mass deaths, deaths are happening right now). ITN cannot tell, much like pandemic declarations or IPCC reports, what the impact of the expert reports will be but we can tell that a declaration of famine anywhere in the world is a significant news item. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, unfortunately, its just a bit of hot air, similar to the Doomsday Clock or the UN's global warming assessments. Deaths from starvation would still happen regardless of this declaration, and unless we have nations asserting they will take action to end the famine (either by aid or pressuring Israel to stop the conflict), it feels like an empty statement. Masem (t) 18:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Its not a statement, its the recognition of a famine. The famine is occuring now, the deaths are hapenning now and more deaths will happen ahead. Do we for instance say that the decalaration of a pandemic by the WHO is "hot air". This is a health emergency and has been recognized as such. Only four such assessments in the past have followed for famines. ITN can choose to ignore a lot of things based on expected outcome but rarely do we make that assessment for health-related emergencies. Gotitbro (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to downplay this, but right now, all I can see in the article on this news item is "On 22 August, the IPC and the FRC confirmed famine within the Gaza Governorate, warning that the classification could spread throughout Gaza". As I commented below, that's nowhere close to a sufficient update for ITN, and that's why I'm trying to figure out what else can be added. If this sets a health emergency situation, then what steps will follow from that, or are they just sitting there stating that, expecting others to act? Masem (t) 01:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Its not a statement, its the recognition of a famine. The famine is occuring now, the deaths are hapenning now and more deaths will happen ahead. Do we for instance say that the decalaration of a pandemic by the WHO is "hot air". This is a health emergency and has been recognized as such. Only four such assessments in the past have followed for famines. ITN can choose to ignore a lot of things based on expected outcome but rarely do we make that assessment for health-related emergencies. Gotitbro (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- So, unfortunately, its just a bit of hot air, similar to the Doomsday Clock or the UN's global warming assessments. Deaths from starvation would still happen regardless of this declaration, and unless we have nations asserting they will take action to end the famine (either by aid or pressuring Israel to stop the conflict), it feels like an empty statement. Masem (t) 18:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Per the report, unless Israel allows aid in the famine will spread further and start resulting in mass deaths (edit: more mass deaths, deaths are happening right now). ITN cannot tell, much like pandemic declarations or IPCC reports, what the impact of the expert reports will be but we can tell that a declaration of famine anywhere in the world is a significant news item. Gotitbro (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Then another question is, what happens now? If its just a declaration that has no grounded impact, then this is all hot air. But if this directs UN nations to combat the famine by any means necessary, that would be different. Masem (t) 16:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Regardless of my questions, I can only see one line about this in the article (up in the lede, not in the body), so this is nowhere close to a sufficient update for posting. There needs to be discussion of what this means and what happens next, and not just a declaration. Masem (t) 18:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- There was a severe risk of famine but no international organization had explicitly declared it as such. Most sources were reporting on deliberate starvation rather than famine. This is the first major report by the FAO, WFP, WHO, UNICEF and various other UN agencies declaring famine (akin to a declaration of epidemic/pandemic by the WHO), per the well established Integrated Food Security Phase Classification. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose To start with, the blurb is incorrect as it's not the UN which has declared a famine but the IPC which is a more complex body with numerous members besides some UN agencies such as Oxfam and other charities. Getting such details right is essential as this is a contentious topic. As the target article was already quite substantial over a year ago, seems more focussed on 2024 than 2025 and such developments are covered by ongoing, I'm not convinced that this report is more than a technical formality. Note also that the report seems to have declared the famine in the Gaza Governorate, which is one of five regions in the strip. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The IPC is a classification system used by different UN agencies, primarily FAO, and not an independent institution of its own accord. The report itself was prepared by different UN agencies (thought about listing them individually but went with a generic UN per most news reports). We can adjust to Gaza to Gaza governorate (again went with news reports here for a succint blurb, but most of the population is anyhow afflicted). I don't believe any of this affects notability, explicit IPC famine reports are not ordinary. Gotitbro (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The IPC is an institution with its own offices, structure and governance, as explained here. The report was produced by its Famine Review Committee which is not a UN body. The report is somewhat like an academic paper but the review process is somewhat different. The terms of reference indicate that an analysis team makes a determination and then the FRC validates it. On paper, it seems like a reasonable process but it's different from the usual peer review of academic journals. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The BBC report says "
The IPC cannot officially declare famine - that is usually done by governments or the United Nations.
" I'm not sure what this means for the current declaration and it seems remarkably bureaucratic and confusing. But again, we need to ensure that all these finicky details are stated correctly before we post a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- The IPC itself is not an independent body, broadly under the FAO its committees and reports are constitutive of it and other UN institutions. But beyond the technical details, reports issued under that classification of food insecurity are the standard for a determination of an occurence of famine under the UN system.
- The BBC report also says this:
Only four previous famines have been classified by the IPC since it was established in 2004, the most recent in Sudan in 2024. ... In response to the report, UN aid chief Tom Fletcher said the famine was entirely preventable, saying food could not get through to the Palestinian territory "because of systematic obstruction by Israel". UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said: "Just when it seems there are no words left to describe the living hell in Gaza, a new one has been added: 'famine'."
- We can get stuck discussing the technicalities of how the IPC operates or realize that an entirely preventable man-made famine has been recognized by the top UN bodies responsible for doing so, which rarely do so. Gotitbro (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- As this is a contentious topic, we have to do it the hard way. For more on the technicalities, see What does it take for a famine to be declared in Gaza?. This, like the BBC, says "
Still, neither FEWS NET nor the IPC makes the official declaration. "It's up to government institutions, United Nations upper leadership, and other high-level representatives to actually make a famine declaration," Hoffine said.
". It's not clear to me that this official declaration has been made. What seems to have happened today is that the FRC released their report. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)- I think an alt blurb has been proposed, blurb terminology can always be fine tuned. The 'hard way' is that this is the top UN report responsible for famine recognition, 'declaration' [as a term] maybe made by whatever political body is concerned but the scientific assessment here is pretty clear [we don't hold our breaths for individual governments to follow up after a WHO declaration of a pandemic and this is really no different (this report is also by the WHO)]. A famine is occuring and we should go with what RS are actually reporting and not bury our heads in the sand. That this is only the fourth such recognition of famine on the IPC scale in the 21st-century is already telling where things stand. Gotitbro (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- It has already been clear for some time that people are going hungry and suffering in Gaza. For example, the Gaza war article that we have in Ongoing says "
The Gaza Strip is experiencing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the war, including a hunger crisis, in which famine-like conditions occurred in some areas of the strip and a high risk of famine persists as of October 2024
" – that's almost a year ago. So, what's new here is the formal declaration and the sources indicate that this is significant legally for issues such as war crimes. So, as the key news is the formal declaration then the exact formalities are what matters. I'm still opposed until it's clear that we are reporting this accurately. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- It has already been clear for some time that people are going hungry and suffering in Gaza. For example, the Gaza war article that we have in Ongoing says "
- I think an alt blurb has been proposed, blurb terminology can always be fine tuned. The 'hard way' is that this is the top UN report responsible for famine recognition, 'declaration' [as a term] maybe made by whatever political body is concerned but the scientific assessment here is pretty clear [we don't hold our breaths for individual governments to follow up after a WHO declaration of a pandemic and this is really no different (this report is also by the WHO)]. A famine is occuring and we should go with what RS are actually reporting and not bury our heads in the sand. That this is only the fourth such recognition of famine on the IPC scale in the 21st-century is already telling where things stand. Gotitbro (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- As this is a contentious topic, we have to do it the hard way. For more on the technicalities, see What does it take for a famine to be declared in Gaza?. This, like the BBC, says "
- The IPC is a classification system used by different UN agencies, primarily FAO, and not an independent institution of its own accord. The report itself was prepared by different UN agencies (thought about listing them individually but went with a generic UN per most news reports). We can adjust to Gaza to Gaza governorate (again went with news reports here for a succint blurb, but most of the population is anyhow afflicted). I don't believe any of this affects notability, explicit IPC famine reports are not ordinary. Gotitbro (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong Support Page View Its important to Post and crucial situation has caused a humanitarian crisis and it’s terrifying to see vulnerable women and children deliberately starved. However maintaining NPOV is essential to verify information and avoid bias so my suggest could be credible sources similar to UN reports and Amnesty International. QalasQalas (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support alt Crucial declaration on the war. ArionStar (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Considering that the IPC definition of "famine" was changed from 30% of the affected children are acutely malnourished (as per previous declarations) to 15%, and that it relies heavily on numbers provided by Hamas, it smacks of propaganda stunt. 128.91.40.237 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Striking non-ECP comment per WP:ARBPIA. And just as a heads up for anyone who comes across this, the IP above is repeating Israeli government propaganda (read lies) against the report. From Science (journal):
Gotitbro (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)But even before the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) group released two reports today, the Israeli military and other critics attacked the science underlying the assessments, arguing that IPC changed the goalposts to make declaring a famine easier. ... Changes to IPC’s assessments that critics are complaining about were made 6 years ago, long before the start of the latest Israel-Hamas war, they point out. ... In most situations, IPC does rely on children’s weight-to-height “z-score.” But amid armed conflict or in remote and difficult-to-reach areas, a MUAC measurement, which only requires a tape measure, is far easier to obtain and can be used instead, according to IPC guidelines. MUAC measurements identify only about half the number of children as malnourished compared with weight-to-height measures, which is why IPC sets the MUAC threshold lower, at 15% instead of 30%. MUAC measurements, and that threshold, were not “quietly” introduced in late July but have been accepted since 2019, when their use was described in an IPC Technical Manual that was updated in 2021. They have previously been used in famine classifications in South Sudan in November 2020 and in Sudan in December 2024. They were also used in all previous reviews of the situation in Gaza. (International hunger watchdog faces political attacks over Gaza famine declaration)
- Striking non-ECP comment per WP:ARBPIA. And just as a heads up for anyone who comes across this, the IP above is repeating Israeli government propaganda (read lies) against the report. From Science (journal):
- Strong support Major development that a mere "covered by ongoing" wouldn't suffice. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 18:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Massive news story. The ongoing is about a war - this eradication is much more than that, and is an unprecedented outcome of a war carried out by and advanced democracy. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support ALT2 Significant enough to override the ongoing item, but I’ve added ALT2; not to sound nitpicky, but the report itself and RSes have all stated that the declared famine is in Gaza City specifically, rather than the Gaza Strip as a whole. The Kip (contribs) 23:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- @The Kip: The IPC classification is actually for the Gaza Governorate as a whole (not just the city). So that willerhaps a be better alt blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro I’m fine with that so long as it specifies the governorate - just want to make sure we’re reporting what the sources are outright saying, which the initial blurb + alt don’t quite do.
- @The Kip: The IPC classification is actually for the Gaza Governorate as a whole (not just the city). So that willerhaps a be better alt blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- That said, most sources are using the “Gaza City and surrounding areas” terminology, hence why I simply put Gaza City in ALT2. The Kip (contribs) 05:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good, and to have a famine be officially declared by IPC outside of Africa for the first time in years is unprecedented. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article in good shape and I think any declaration of this magnitude (i.e. famines) are blurb worthy. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment – Before this story is posted, it's seriously worth noting that the original blurb and altblurb1 can not be used, as both are factually incorrect: the United Nations itself did not declare famine, and the confirmation of famine was for Gaza City, not the entirety of Gaza. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb2 as the famine is specifically in Gaza City. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support altblurb2 per above, although I would prefer if we could pick one of either "confirms" or "declares" as opposed to the awkward current "confirms/declares". FlipandFlopped ㋡ 02:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose covered by ongoing. If the capture of major cities in UA doesn't count, neither does this This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Zuristyo Firmadata
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.metrotvnews.com/read/NG9CQ0ZE-ketua-dpw-nasdem-babel-zuristyo-firmadata-meninggal-dunia
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Former Indonesian MP. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 09:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is good to go. Sahaib (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
August 21
[edit]
August 21, 2025
(Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Brent Hinds
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Atlanta News First Forbes Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Lestat1666 (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: Founding member and co-vocalist of the Grammy-winning progressive metal band Mastodon ItsShandog (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Sad to see this guy, go, man, Mastodon was a band that really got me down the metal rabbit hole. The guest appearances section I think needs a bit more sourcing and it should be good. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- I’ve added reliable sources where available, and used citation needed templates for unsourced claims in case others can help verify them. ItsShandog (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
RD/Blurb: James Dobson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Evangelical leader, James Dobson, (pictured) dies at the age of 89. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:
- Updated by Jolielover (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American evangelical Christian author (born 1936) jolielover♥talk 14:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs too much work correcting tenses, other copy-editing and pruning the tendentious argumentation. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not Quite Ready Needs a little copyediting to reflect his recent passing. That said, the page is not in bad shape, and surprisingly, is pretty well referenced. Not a huge fan but he was one of the most influential figures in the right wing of America's culture wars. I'd consider a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- He was described as "the nation's most influential evangelical leader" and so was at the top of his field. As we have a good picture too, a blurb seems a reasonable option. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ehhhh, I don't think he has that much international impact for a blurb. I didn't know he existed until after his death. Although I'm pretty neutral and don't mind either way. jolielover♥talk 16:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD Great quality for RD, but not quite worthy of a blurb. MallardTV Talk to me! 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. Could use some citation fixes as is usual, but this article doesn't seem too far off. As far as a blurb goes, I'm opposing here too. I get this isn't usually a great barometer, but for all this article says about Dobson's supposed impact on American cultural debate, I couldn't for the life of me told you who he was before I saw this nomination. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? Yeah. But I can't fathom Dobson being on the same level, regardless of what superlative claims the article has. Beyond this, while the article seems to suggest he was the successor to Falwell and Robertson, the "Social influence" section of his article is conspicuously bare on things he's been credited with over the past two decades (aka when Falwell died). Perhaps I'm getting too far into the weeds, but I...don't see the level of impact that is seemly being attributed to him by the lede in the body of the article. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb - per below, not every famous American culture star needs a blurb. — EF5 16:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per others; while perhaps influential in America, he wasn't critical to the nation and not nearly to the level that any national figure could be blurb-able. Also, I think a discussion should be held to split the list of books he authored from the main page, because it seems there's an awful lot, maybe with a lot to say, and as of now it's just a list with no elaboration that still takes up a substantial amount of space on the page of over 100,000 bytes including references - am I wrong or is that split territory? Departure– (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb for better or worse he was a major influence on American religion - but not as big of an influence to be blurb-worthy. --FelineHerder (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose at this moment, the article needs more citation work. Also Weak Oppose Blurb because I don't see how his life had major international impact ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 16:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb outright, Oppose RD on quality per above. The Kip (contribs) 17:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb, not ready for RD on quality, sure, he founded Focus on the Family which is culturally responsible for some of the problems the US is staring down the barrel of and all but making the cultural divide the culture war, but there were many more prominent leaders in that respect who used his organization as the vehicle for their own cultural crusades. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 17:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose blurb for the usual reasons. He is just another American celebrity who was neither top of his field nor a truly transformative figure. Billy Graham was surely "the nation's most influential evangelical leader" in living memory, right? Humbledaisy (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose Blurb - the quality looks OK now. But for all that the article says Dobson was 'imagined' as an evangelical pope issuing edicts from a protestant Vatican in Colorado Springs, we must be realistic and recognise that he was nothing of the sort. He was a demagogue (and a liar) but he was never the leader of a major denomination, and his was only one of several prominent voices in the US evangelical conservative movement of his era. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- He was hugely important partly because he was extra-denominational. His influence through Focus on the Family was part of the transition from the importance of denominations to the rise of parachurch organizations. His influence last longer and peaks later than similar leaders "of his era" like Ralph Reed, Randall Terry, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Jahaza (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready for RD The article is still littered with too many citation needed / unreliable source / better source needed tags. Oppose blurb per everyone. He was not a nobody by any means, but he was at most a political activist on the level of other people who we did not post. The only evangelical American preacher we posted (to my knowledge at least) was Billy Graham. Dobson probably made the list of most noteworthy evangelical activists/lobbyists, but there's countless influential lobbyist organizations for a countless number of political stances, so that's just too specific a "field." I wouldn't even agree with calling Dobson a major household name in the US; he has less name recognition than Kenneth Copeland (according to google trends at least, admittedly not a good argument for ITN), but I certainly wouldn't blurb Copeland either. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:16, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb because it's nonsense and oppose RD on quality. Some lines are unsourced and there's some CN tags. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready as there are currently sourcing issues. I support an RD only since he wasn't notable on par with a world leader nor transformative in his field. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not yet ready for RD, oppose blurb per above. There are still several CN tags, and there's nothing blurbworthy about this death. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb per consensus - thankfully, and distressingly rarely, ITN contributors recognize the folly of deathblurbs This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- "ITN contributors recognize the folly of deathblurbs", perhaps for this partocular nom but not generally. Graham has been cited above by a number of editors as much more notable (he was blurbed). Gotitbro (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not really a big international Christian leader like The Pope (since he only really had an impact in 1 country, unlike Graham who did have a worldwide impact) or transformative in his field. Neutral on RD as it doesn't seem ready yet. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - Seems to be a local figure. I literally can't find any international coverage of his demise (eg. using a Google News Search other than an a couple of Canadian sites picking up the Associated Press report. The article is also concerning; there's far too much coverage of his extremism and anti-gay bigotry in comparison to the Criticism section. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
August 20
[edit]
August 20, 2025
(Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Humpy Wheeler
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NASCAR.com
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:6962:248B:60D8:86BC (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk · give credit), Connormah (talk · give credit) and Nascar9919 (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.
240F:7A:6253:1:6962:248B:60D8:86BC (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Józef Kowalczyk
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gazeta Krakowska, Polish Radio
Credits:
- Nominated by EUPBR (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: Catholic bishop and primate of Poland EUPBR (talk) 09:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Looks adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Decent quality. — Kpalion(talk) 09:20, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted as RD) RD/Blurb : Frank Caprio
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Frank Caprio (pictured), the Rhode Island judge who became a TV star, dies at the age of 88. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Chief judge and internet personality Frank Caprio (pictured) dies at the age of 88.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Hundustan Times, WPRI BNO News
Credits:
- Nominated by Johndavies837 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by C.Fred (talk · give credit), Strattonsmith (talk · give credit), ItsShandog (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
- Support. Viral judge regarded as the nicest in America and a YouTuber with millions of subscribers. So sad he died a day after uploading his final short. R.I.P. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support, clearly a notable enough figure to be listed on the Recent Deaths section, the instagram post announcing his passing gained over 400k likes in just an hour. TheFellaVB (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- As long as somebody has a Wikipedia page, they're automatically worthy of being added to Recent Deaths just as long as their article is not in poor shape, e.g. needing more citations. They could even be an animal (or even a plant) Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- This clearly isn't the case, just by looking at the page about 2025 deaths around 20 people with pages pass away every day, many of them with good pages too and proper coverage on their deaths. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- All of them merit their own RD posting. However, it's up to editors to nominate them here. If no one bothers to nominate someone, then it'll never get posted. The quality question also matters: even a large chunk of ITN/R events (mostly sporting events) wind up failing to get posted simply because no one improved the article sufficiently to post it to the front page. So if you see someone/something with an article has passed, by all means please nominate them! Pretty much any editor may make a nomination. Nottheking (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths. They obviously will have to be nominated here in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 06:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- This clearly isn't the case, just by looking at the page about 2025 deaths around 20 people with pages pass away every day, many of them with good pages too and proper coverage on their deaths. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- As long as somebody has a Wikipedia page, they're automatically worthy of being added to Recent Deaths just as long as their article is not in poor shape, e.g. needing more citations. They could even be an animal (or even a plant) Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD only I did not spot any glaring issues from a readthrough. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment A blurb was added after my previous comment was posted, I've updated my comment to reflect this. All previous comments were also posted before this blurb was added. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support He was kind nice judge. QalasQalas (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support article meets posting requirements. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support & blurb Honestly, I think he deserves a blurb for being as popular and well-known as he was. TwistedAxe [contact] 22:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Popularity is not a good reason for a blurb, because that makes blurb posting a popularity game and will heavily favor US and UK celebrities. Masem (t) 00:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Initially I meant influential, but now that I think about it, he wasn't too influential. Fair point. TwistedAxe [contact] 10:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Popularity is not a good reason for a blurb, because that makes blurb posting a popularity game and will heavily favor US and UK celebrities. Masem (t) 00:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD Quality looks to be sufficient. No need to discuss a blurb as that's a non-starter (not at the top of his respective field or a major transformative figure, for judges an example of one we posted would be Ruth Bader Ginsburg) Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:06, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Brazil loves you ❤️ ArionStar (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD and Blurb and it is Ready. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support It's ready. RIP to a sweet soul. AsaQuathern (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support article is well written. RIP Your Honour. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a clarification to my !vote, I support RD as, even though he is getting international coverage and was a very nice all round person, he was still simply a municipal judge and not transformative in his field that would meet the standard for a blurb under ITN criteria. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb The subject is in the news and getting international coverage. The article is attracting hundreds of thousands of readers whereas Jim Lovell's readership, for example, is down to less than 10K per day and so it's time to scroll that blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: The blurb was silently added here. All previous votes that just mention "support" does not mean an implicit blurb support since only the RD existed then. Comment Traffic and popularity is irrelevant in this case. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD His passing has drew global attention, with millions engaging across platforms. The article is in good shape. ItsShandog (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support blurb: Gaining international attention. RIP to a legend. Tofusaurus (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD There comes a point where I do not know if some editors have just understood how ITN works to propose that any famous person they like has blurb, but this is an encyclopedia. There are other places for this kind of initiatives and it is not Wikipedia. Main Page is not Instagram, nor Twitter, nor the New York Times. The requirements for the judge to have a blurb are not met. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD. I was going to post this but I'm going to be AFK shortly and it's unclear what some people are !voting for above, as the "blurb" option was added after some people had supported an RD (as you can see from 5.57.243.123's comment). Black Kite (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- The idea of a blurb is nuts. He was not at the top of his field and his death is not shocking. He was a good, hardworking dude whose passing has no impact and will be forgotten by most tomorrow. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted as RD. Quality seems met and consensus for that above, so no issues there. Needless to say, I oppose a blurb. It seems he is something of a household name in the US, but that's never been the standard and I think if we're going to move the goalposts to post any household name then we need to codify that via RFC. Under the current standards, he is nowhere near the transformative level at which we'd consider blurbing. — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- He is very much not a household name in the US. I think the blurb voters are just having a laugh. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yea, I’ve never heard of this guy. EF5 11:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- He is the late 2010s to 2020s version of Judge Judy, FWIW. Many young people grew up watching clips of his show.
- In addition to that, he has a strong reputation as being a very good person: “America’s most empathetic judge”.
- None of that is to say I support a blurb, but I understand why he is being nominated and don’t think the support !voters have any bad faith. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 12:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - we’re not going to post every American pop culture star ever simply because they’re famous. And who gives a crap about the pageviews? EF5 11:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- He is very much not a household name in the US. I think the blurb voters are just having a laugh. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:26, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb — The subject is not well-known beyond YouTube. I cannot even recall the last time a lower court judge appeared on ITN, let alone one with jurisdiction in a municipal court that doesn't have its own page. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support blurb At first I thought Judge Caprio was only known among U.S. audiences, but seeing the multiple obits from other countries/languages and the amount of people from different countries following and commenting on his social media accounts, I'd like to say his popularity has extended past YouTube and even mainstream America. If this were a Canadian/Indian/British/Slovakian/Mexican/etc. judge that had the same amount of social media presence as Judge Caprio did, I'd be supporting a blurb also. Evidence of international obits and/or coverage: BBC, Syndey Morning Herald, Toronto Sun, Univision, El Universo, Le Parisien. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Popularity should never be a reason for a blurb. We can anticipate that if someone has achieved viral fame due to the internet, there will be international coverage of that, and if those are short form obit coverage (which spot checking here those all are), that's less reason to consider a blurb. Masem (t) 16:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - death blurb suggestions are beginning to jump the shark a bit. The Kip (contribs) 16:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's starting to seem as if the only requirement to have a blurb is to be a famous American person on television or radio, and the community's just rolling along with that. — EF5 16:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not even just TV/radio Americans, Terence Stamp got a blurb discussion and Andrew wants one for Donald McPherson below. The Kip (contribs) 17:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- That's not really fair. Consensus is pretty strongly against the blurb. If you were to change that to "blurb nom" I would agree with you, but that only takes one editor. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Second what Great Caesar's Ghost said. I wouldn't say this thread is any indication of shifting attitudes towards death blurbs, given there's only a small minority supportive of posting and this has a snowball's chance in hell of being made into a full blurb. If I weren't involved I'd close this thread as it was correctly posted to RD and it seems like (mostly) everybody is happy with leaving it at that. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Past discussions are what I’m referring to (Connie Francis, Hulk Hogan, etc.) EF5 19:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 I don't think Francis needed one, but even as someone who detested him as an individual, Hogan was deserving of a blurb - he brought pro wrestling into the mainstream not just in the US but arguably globally. The Kip (contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, my viewpoint may be a minority, but regardless, I stand by my opinion that more American pop culture people are being discussed as blurbs than I can remember. EF5 19:25, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 I don't think Francis needed one, but even as someone who detested him as an individual, Hogan was deserving of a blurb - he brought pro wrestling into the mainstream not just in the US but arguably globally. The Kip (contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Past discussions are what I’m referring to (Connie Francis, Hulk Hogan, etc.) EF5 19:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's starting to seem as if the only requirement to have a blurb is to be a famous American person on television or radio, and the community's just rolling along with that. — EF5 16:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb. Appearing in a few popular YouTube videos is blurb material now? DarkSide830 (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb as the article does not show how he was important to that level of ITN. Departure– (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - being a household name in the USA is not in itself a reason for a blurb. And procedurally, this ought not to have been promoted to a blurb nomination without clearer indication and a notification to those whose existing 'support' votes were thereby seemingly co-opted. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Levan Gachechiladze
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Inter Press News
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.
--QalasQalas (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready A couple of CN tags relating to significant claims of fact. They need to be sourced before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Donald M. McPherson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): News Channel Nebraska
Credits:
- Nominated by Toadboy123 (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: Last living American World War II flying ace Toadboy123 (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wait There's surprisingly little coverage of this, compared to the similar John Cruickshank below, for example, whose death was covered in detail in the top tier of national newspapers. I reckon we need more than News Channel Nebraska simply to confirm the death.
- Note that the article is new. The creator, Toadboy123, seems to know what he's doing but some double-checking would be prudent. Note also that simply running this name in RD would be quite uninformative as no-one will know it, as there's little coverage. Why oh why can't we give some bare-bones details too such as the short description? Short descriptions were created for exactly this purpose and a lot of effort goes into maintaining them but ITN is still SNAFU. Per WP:SDESC,
The short description of a Wikipedia page is a brief phrase intended to complement and clarify the page title, particularly in contexts where this is seen in isolation from the page itself. Taken together, the title and short description concisely explain the subject of the page...
- Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, quality looks adequate. Oppose blurb as Andrew's seemingly suggesting, for reasons that should be obvious. The Kip (contribs) 17:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think Andrew is actually suggesting a blurb, but a halfway compromise - to list his name with a few biographical details, like age and occupation. He has mentioned that other language wikis do that. FWIW, until the en Wikipedia agrees to do that across the board, this suggestion is not viable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - and also oppose any further creeping development of non-standard RD practice. Andrew, if you want more news stories to be posted, there's a mass casualty event further down the page that you opposed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose blurb - oh, you’re kidding me. EF5 19:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
August 19
[edit]
August 19, 2025
(Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Michael C. J. Putnam
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Brown University obituary
Credits:
- Nominated by UndercoverClassicist (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Adelberta (talk · give credit), Peanutharvester (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (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 classical scholar (and namesake of an asteroid). Article is fairly short but fully cited and a decent brief biography. Scanning his obit from Brown, we're not missing too much. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Needed a picture so I took care of it. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) 2025 Herat road crash
[edit]Blurb: A multi-vehicle collision involving a bus carrying migrants deported from Iran kills at least 79 people in the Guzara District, Afghanistan. (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post BBC Google News
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
- Updated by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Catastrophic road accident involving a major transnational issue. ArionStar (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability heavy casualities QalasQalas (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support on notability as it is the deadliest traffic collision this year but oppose on quality as there is multiple issues and two sources. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looks horrible @Bloxzge 025 just improve it!! QalasQalas (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I mean I can try to add to it. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Working on it… ArionStar (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
@Bloxzge 025: The article is better now. ArionStar (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Working on it… ArionStar (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I mean I can try to add to it. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Looks horrible @Bloxzge 025 just improve it!! QalasQalas (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NEWSEVENT and bus plunge. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose these happen so often that it isn’t even noteworthy. Simply having a high death toll doesn’t make something notable. EF5 00:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's not a bus plunge, it's a multiple-vehicle collision; and it's a lasting effect of the 2025 Afghan deportation from Iran. ArionStar (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Bus plunge is not about a specific bus plunge but the journalistic use of reporting on traffic accidents as page fillers. And there is no way to judge immediately on the long term effects. Masem (t) 00:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- I never said it was a bus plunge. I’m opposing because these are exceedingly common. EF5 00:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- It's not a bus plunge, it's a multiple-vehicle collision; and it's a lasting effect of the 2025 Afghan deportation from Iran. ArionStar (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Relevant and quite obviously not what is described in the article on bus plunge. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support The death toll itself is significant that this happened to focibly deported migrants from Iran to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan only adds to the notability further. Gotitbro (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Gotitbro - the political relations/implications of the crash raise it beyond the usual idea of bus plunges. The Kip (contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - A very large number of casualties in an event with an obvious international political context. ('Bus plunge' arguments are a disgraceful red herring even when there isn't such an obvious context; the practices of US regional print media several decades ago should have nothing to do with how we handle current events.) But the blurb should be amended to avoid the unwieldy noun phrase 'Iran-deported migrants'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe "migrants deported from Iran"? ArionStar (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does the media confirmed they were deported or is it speculation? QalasQalas (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- All sources stated it. ArionStar (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Does the media confirmed they were deported or is it speculation? QalasQalas (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe "migrants deported from Iran"? ArionStar (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 23:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Razak Omotoyossi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSN
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: Benin’s legend one of their all-time top scorers. QalasQalas (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Outstanding source issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I concur career section needs some work QalasQalas (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Eemeli Peltonen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Yle BBC Euro News
Credits:
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
- Updated by QalasQalas (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: Finnish MP, committed suicide in the Parliament House after battling kidney disease. The Kip (contribs) 15:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is a bit short but well sourced. I think the article is sufficient quality for RD as I did not spot any glaring issues with it.
- 5.57.243.123 (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support I have rewritten/added to information about his death, mainly events prior to his death, and a bit of context on suicide amongst Finnish politicians. Otherwise, article is well sourced, and this has been reported across international news media. Montezuma69 (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Now enough to POST. QalasQalas (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - I just amended 'commit suicide' to 'die by suicide' in the article. I think this is sufficiently updated to post. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Montezuma69 & Toffeenix should be credited as updaters. --11:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.90.100 (talk)
- Comment potential blurb? A 30-year-old sitting Member of Parliament, believed to have died by suicide inside the parliament following a struggle with illness seems interesting enough. (this is not a formulaic proposal, though) Respublik (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
S/2025 U 1
[edit]Blurb: NASA announces the discovery of a new moon of Uranus (pictured) by the James Webb Space Telescope. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Astronomers using the James Webb Space Telescope announce the discovery of a new moon of Uranus (pictured)
News source(s): AP, Astronomy, BBC, Google News Topic, NBC, NYT, Scientific American
Credits:
- Nominated by MallardTV (talk · give credit)
- Created by Nrco0e (talk · give credit)
- Updated by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
MallardTV Talk to me! 20:15, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Soft oppose Neat, but how notable is this really? 128 moons of Saturn have been discovered this year, and the second most recent discovery of a moon of Uranus was only two years ago. Estreyeria (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The moon article has been nominated at AfD. I have !voted for a speedy keep result, as I think WP:NASTRO is clearly met, but just noting this as a roadblock to posting until the AfD nom is resolved. For my part, I would like to wait to see if the current flurry of news articles is just initial hype; i.e., if substantive articles or other indicia of this moon's special significance emerge by tomorrow. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:25, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- It was soon speedily kept. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:52, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose partially per Estreyeria. This story really has zero importance, and the only reason it's getting any mainstream news coverage is because of its small size (and even then, Saturn has literally hundreds of moons that are smaller). Interesting but not particularly notable. -- Kicking222 (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Too routine new moons haven't been rare in decades but Uranus is like over double the annual James Webb distance minimum as Saturn with a quarter the local sunlight brightness and S/2025 U1 is as dark colored as asphalt. The brightness at Webb is magnitude 25.5 which is pretty effing good for such short exposure (a full orbit is only 9.6 hours and it's not motion blurred). For comparison the Sun's magnitude minus is 26.78, the Full Moon's magnitude is minus 12.78, the brightest star besides the one that causes daytime is minus 1.46, the dimmest stars you see in New York City are about positive three and a half, the dimmest stars you see in a place far far far darker than where most people live is about six and a half, the dimmest you see in that pitch black wilderness with a 200 millimeter wide pupil (lens) up to your eye at 60 times magnification is like 13, the brightest moon in the upper left is 16.6, the dimmest you see in a minutes long film exposure with a 200 inch wide telephoto lens' lens is like 22 and the dimmest you see in the EXtreme Deep Field with a 23 day (1,987,200 seconds) cumulative exposure time with an 8 foot wide eyeball pupil orbiting Earth in hard vacuum and far higher ISO than film for the same noise ISO is like 31.5. Also there was a Cassini probe that orbited Saturn 294 times discovering tons of moons Uranus has never had an orbiting spacecraft. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- comment First, make sure to include sources. Second, is the story about the moon or about the success of the JWST (like, is this the first new moon in our system its found?) that might influence which way this should be taken. Masem (t) 03:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting discovery, but is otherwise unremarkable or noteworthy on its own. Not helping by the fact that this news has barely any coverage. NotKringe (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support It's ok and more in the news than the helicopter crash which is two weeks old now. Our mission is to "
... emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource
". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC) - Support per Andrew. And I see this interesting news to me and I like some space news too. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support per Andrew and if you search Google News it show you btw title is so interesting. QalasQalas (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unimportant, not headline news in global outlets. Sandstein 18:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support, meets notability, would usually not meet significance imo, but it's encyclopedic and all of our current entries are stale (the most recent happening on 11 August). Article is short, but quality is way better than all of the 10 moons of Uranus articles I checked. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per all opposers above. EF5 20:14, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose - A 9-km diameter rock around Uranus? Calling it in the news is pretty generous. And as pointed out there's been scores of new moons discovered around the other 7 planets already this year. The only real argument above is that in the dog-days of August, the other topics are stale - which simply isn't relevant. Nfitz (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support It is in the news and interesting, and there is an image unlike the previous Uranus discovery. The article is on the shorter end, but is likely sufficient for the topic matter. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong support A new (inner) moon of a planet? Totally significant. ArionStar (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Notable and of interest. Jusdafax (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Discoveries of relatively large celestial bodies closer than Neptune don't happen often. I'd say it is one of those astronomy news that certainly deserve a place in ITN. Trepang2 (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Relatively large" but literally the smallest moon of Uranus. Not to mention somebody above tried to argue it's worthy of a blurb because of how small it is. Kicking222 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- As a comparison there's 416 known natural satellites in the eight planets almost all of the four gas planets that's almost as many as the 507ish known numbered comets (the 1 Halley 2 Encke 3 etc series) and the frequent new discoveries like comet 507P/Lemmon are dim like fuck even at the brightest (Earth POV) point of the consecutive aphelion interval that contains their discovery no one would nominate them. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- "Relatively large" but literally the smallest moon of Uranus. Not to mention somebody above tried to argue it's worthy of a blurb because of how small it is. Kicking222 (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: as an astronomer, I find this discovery pretty boring and unremarkable. Last year there were dozens of new moons discovered around Saturn. The 29th moon of Uranus, with nothing more known about it, is underwhelming. But ITN is desperate for blurbs to post and the article quality is sufficient, so I won't oppose. I have written an altblurb, which fixes the attribution - NASA issued a press release but did not make the discovery. Modest Genius talk 14:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Estreyeria, Nfitz, and Modest Genius. The Kip (contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per Modest Genius. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support It's been a few days now, and there is still fairly indepth enduring coverage from within the past 24h, which signifies to me that this is different from the other "mundane" moon discoveries described above (see e.g. 1 2 3. For whatever reason, this moon is attracting more public interest - sometimes the news coverage doesn't make rational sense, but it's "in the news", so we ought to post it. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 02:12, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
August 18
[edit]
August 18, 2025
(Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Jean Pormanove
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France 24
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Muip1234 (talk · give credit), QwertyZ34 (talk · give credit) and CassiJevenn (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: French internet streamer. Thriley (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- We don't post stubs. Schwede66 05:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Nice expansion over the past ~20 hours. 600+ words of prose now. Time for a re-review? --PFHLai (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support article is well cited. R.I.P. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article has been substantially improved. The circumstances are also extremely unusual, and quite possibly a first-of-its-kind tragedy... To the point of where if the news coverage was more broad, it might even merit consideration for a blurb. As it stands, though, at least getting it into the RD ticker is important to keep up with English Wikipedia's coverage of events outside of the English-speaking world. Nottheking (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Expanded article with sufficient citations. Jusdafax (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Weak support - The article is sufficiently expanded, but IMHO it could do with some reworking (and arguably a BLP sense-check) around the death section, which I'm not in a good position to do. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose due to serious BLP concerns in the Death section. That section reads like a hit piece, and I don't think it should be posted into that is resolved. There is also a CN tag that needs fixing, but the main issue is the BLP problems. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Banu Kırbağ
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Haberler
Credits:
- Created and nominated by QalasQalas (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: Known for her folk, solo artist and composer. QalasQalas (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support farewell and RIP Banu Kırbağ she was definitely one of the most original voices I was listen to since my childhood. 185.34.130.148 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support - Update is sufficient but in my opinion it would benefit from clarification from a subject expert about what is meant by her being the 'first Turkist female arranger' - the works she's first mentioned as having arranged were her own compositions, so I'm not sure of the distinction being drawn. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Admins willing to post ITN: --QalasQalas (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think this is ready. The question posed by GenevieveDEon needs to be addressed. Reference number 3, which is used as a source for the "first" claim, states that she
received the title of the first female orchestra conductor in the history of Turkish pop music
. Hence, the claim is not sourced. Reference number 2, which explicitly talks about arrangement, says that she mademusic history as one of Türkiye's first female arrangers
. Again, this does not confirm the "first" claim. Schwede66 23:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
2025 European and Mediterranean wildfires
[edit]Blurb: A series of wildfires across Mediterranean countries leave at least 25 people died, hundreds injured and tens of thousands evacuated. (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment The title of the article is problematic. Almost all of the countries listed are European. Many of those also border the Mediterranean. Only a couple border the Mediterranean and are not in Europe. Would European and North African wildfires be a better title? HiLo48 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Fires have been ongoing since June per our article. Its also prime wildfire season, and while they aren't as frequent in Europe compared to North America or other areas of the world, they're also not rare events. If it were one single blaze over a few days that killed that many people in that short time, maybe, but not over 3 months. Masem (t) 04:23, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose largely per Masem, at least for now. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:SYN as this seems to be an arbitrary compilation of unrelated news events. For a better story about wildfires with some actual analysis, see Wildfire Fighters, Unmasked in Toxic Smoke, Are Getting Sick and Dying. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- I appreciate blurbing a longer-running news item once our article on the subject has reached a certain level of quality, but this does have a bit of a "why now" problem. I'm not seeing anything in the article indicating that the past week has been the peak of wildfires. I'm not sure how to decide when the blurb such an item either, though... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip (talk • contribs)
(Posted) RD: I Gusti Kompyang Manila
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNNIndonesia
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (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: Indonesian politician and civil servant. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- First line of article still has him in present tense. Looks decently referenced, but others may feel differently, so holding off on my !vote. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Done Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:40, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support well sourced and comprehensive. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted AGF on offline source for DOB. Great work! Curbon7 (talk) 06:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
August 17
[edit]
August 17, 2025
(Sunday)
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(REVIEWS NEEDED) RD: John Joannopoulos
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://news.mit.edu/2025/professor-john-joannopoulos-dies-0819
Credits:
- Updated by Stevenj (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 physicist. --12:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
(REVIEWS NEEDED) RD: Gayle Cook
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): FOX59 WBAA The Herald Times
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: She was philanthropist and co-founder of Cook {{WIR}} QalasQalas (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per quality of the article. Career section encompases only: "In 1963, she <>co-founded the Cook Group<> As of 2013, she still served on the company's board of directors." Respublik (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Joe Caroff
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:48E3:6BAF:E2EE:4210 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Deathisallaroundus (talk · give credit) and Sunshineisles2 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: American graphic designer best known for designer of the iconic 007 logo. 240F:7A:6253:1:48E3:6BAF:E2EE:4210 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Quite interesting and influential. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 19:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ronnie Rondell Jr.
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ronnie Rondell Jr., Hollywood Stuntman Set Ablaze for Pink Floyd’s ‘Wish You Were Here’ Album Cover, Dies at 88
Credits:
- Nominated by Floydian (talk · give credit)
- Created by MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk · give credit)
- Updated by MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk · give credit) and Pigsonthewing (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: Stuntman famous for being the burning man on the cover of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here. Article is updated and adequately sourced. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Article doesn't meet quality standards, and I struggle with if this fits notability standards as well. -The Robot Parade (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- RD noms don't have to fulfill notability criteria, only quality, per this RFC. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support article throughout is well sourced V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 04:57, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted to RD) RD/blurb: Terence Stamp
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Actor Terence Stamp (pictured) dies at age 87. (Post)
Alternative blurb: English actor Terence Stamp (pictured) dies at age 87.
News source(s): US News Sky News BBC
Credits:
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Created by Deb (talk · give credit)
- Updated by QalasQalas (talk · give credit), תיל"ם (talk · give credit) and Yorkshiresky (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: Oscar-nominated actor best known for Billy Budd and Superman. ItsShandog (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality, as not everything is referenced. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support WP:B? As it B-Class biography articles
- Support blurb Support as a blurb as opposed to RD, he was a world famous actor who deserves more than a passing RD mention. Inexpiable (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- We don't use blurbs just because someone was famous. They need to be shown they were a major figure in their field, and that's not really the case for Stamp. Plus we're miles away from a quality article that its going to take a lot of work to even get there. Masem (t) 22:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose Blurb Absolutely notable enough for a RD nod despite sourcing issues that should be fixed. However, in no way does the article meet the notability standards for a blurb. -The Robot Parade (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Picture A famous face that is opportune as ITN's lead picture is currently quite stale (Jim Lovell, who died two weeks ago and whose picture has been used for over a week now) Andrew🐉(talk) 22:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Strong oppose on quality - way too much of this is unsourced for me to even be comfortable with an RD. EF5 22:51, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Citations have been added to support previously unsourced content. Please advise if any further statements require referencing, Thank you. ItsShandog (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb For RD inline sourcing needs to be fixed. As for the blurb oppose, I needn't remind editors here of the many blurb discussions for more recognizable actors which didn't pass. Also, an odd comment above opposing an RD and supporting a blurb (we can post both, if it qualifies for the latter obviously it does for the former). Gotitbro (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand the phrase "as opposed to". Andrew🐉(talk) 23:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not ready, there are whole sections that are still unsourced, when these are resolved I'd be inclined I'd support an RD only on grounds of not being transformative in their field or being a household name, despite his role as General Zod. Comment since death blurbs normally preface with nationality of the person, I've boldly added this to the main blurb. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- "He was named by Empire as one of the 100 Sexiest Film Stars of All Time in 1995" being the ~third main thing this article wants us to know about this person is a pretty bad sign. Regardless, our coverage of his death is only 8 words, so I don't think we have much to blurb here. I think this would need some impressive work to become a good ITN feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:23, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - Not an outstanding or transformative figure in his field, but a noted actor with a decent article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - Even General Zod would concur, once sourcing issues are resolved. CoatCheck (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb - As all above. Unfortunately, quality isn't there yet --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Top of his field? ArionStar (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose blurb per above. The Kip (contribs) 15:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose blurb I believe the article is ready for the main page.yorkshiresky (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose blurb - The article's quality has been greatly improved, and it's ready to be posted. While he was a celebrated actor, I don't think that we can justify a blurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 19:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
August 16
[edit]
August 16, 2025
(Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime |
(REVIEWS NEEDED) RD: Graeme Campbell
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-18/kalgoorlie-remembers-former-federal-mp-graeme-campbell/105662674
Credits:
- Updated by Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk · give credit) and Qwerty123M (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: Australian MP from 1980 to 1998. --12:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Article could use some clarification for readers not familiar with Australian politics. I am unsure what it means when he "crossed the floor on gold tax", had "numerous run-ins with the Labor leadership", or what the Mabo decision was. SpencerT•C 19:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Larry Jones
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/high-school/2025/08/19/columbus-mourns-aba-pioneer-larry-jones-who-starred-for-east-high/85723082007/
Credits:
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit) and Alexgor23 (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: The first American Basketball Association player to reach 5,000 career points. --12:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted. Curbon7 (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Tomo Sakurai
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Comic Book
Credits:
- Nominated by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
- Created by Ranma9617 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Miraclepine (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: Sakurai's voice was more recognizable than her figure. QalasQalas (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Shouldn’t this be under the announced date of death, not the actual date, which is why I nominated it under Saturday? First announcement of her passing was on her Twitter yesterday. Anyway,
oppose due to lack of citations, needs a lot of work. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 01:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm working on this and should have it ready by 2000 UTC. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:21, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- BOLD-ly moving this to date of announcement of her death instead of actual date of death. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 15:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment Filmography needs some additional sourcing. Other than that thatI feel the article is overall in good enough shape for a support. 5.57.243.123 (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2025 (UTC)- Support now that @Miraclepine: has worked a lot of Wikignoming magic, striking previous vote. Giving them Updater credit in the nom. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 17:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support now that my work expanding/improving the page has been done. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: John Cruickshank
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Telegraph, The Times
Credits:
- Nominated by 65.94.90.100 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (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: Last surviving WW2 Victoria Cross recipient. Need a lot more sources. --12:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support What the article needed most was a picture so I took care of that. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality what the article also really needs are sources. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. As the last surviving WWII winner of the VC, I was sorry to see the poor state of referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Dan Tana
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline Hollywood, Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by 240F:7A:6253:1:E0A2:9BC2:F62B:1150 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Connormah (talk · give credit) and ErktheBerserker (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: Owner of Dan Tana's. His death was announced on 16 August. 240F:7A:6253:1:E0A2:9BC2:F62B:1150 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Not Ready for the usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
(Closed) 2025 Russia–United States summit
[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 summit meeting between Russia and the United States (presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump pictured) in Anchorage, Alaska, ends without an agreement on ending the Russia–Ukraine war. (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Sandstein (talk · give credit)
- Created by Mussia9897 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by QalasQalas (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Weak Support it's a non-event, but it's a lot more of an event than some other non-events we post, and it's in global headlines. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose as it does not have an apparent result. Would be willing to support if there was a major headline to come out of the summit. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- We cover what's in the news, and it's in the news. Rolling coverage even after the summit concludes. Sandstein 16:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but for me this summit is not "significant" enough, without a clear result. Putin and Trump have met (or had discussions) in the past. Natg 19 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't care whether Natg 19 considers something important. It's about whether the sources consider it important. Which they do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- While we use sources to make sure something is covered in the news, we still use consensus of editors to determine if what's reported in the news is significant enough to post for ITN, because being an encyclopedia, not everything that newspapers considers important are considered encyclopedic. Masem (t) 19:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whether something is encyclopedic is decided by WP:N. Consensus is decided by WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, which says that consensus is determined through
policy, sources, and common sense
. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS also says that groups of editors can't decide that policies don't apply to their area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)- To be honest, I don't disagree with this, as this would allow for more objectivity at ITN instead of just hand waving why something should/should not be posted. But this is not how we do things here, as WP:ITNSIGNIF says to use "local consensus" to determine post-ability.Natg 19 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Then ITNSIGNIF violates policy and its enforcement is disruptive editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- ITNSIGNIF exists on top of sitewide policies, not as a replacement for them. ITN doesn't decide if something is encyclopedic, ITN simply decides what to feature. Yes, it is subjective, but so is the entire rest of the main page (nothing more subjective than the "sufficiently interesting" criteria of DYK). So are the sitewide notability guidelines; what is notable or not notable is not always so black and white, hence why it's a source of endless debate. ITN having a set of subjective criteria for determining which content to feature is perfectly fine and in no way a LOCALCONSENSUS vio. I understand you do not recognize ITNSIGNIF and would prefer that ITN as a whole did not exist, but making this known in most every ITN thread you participate in and arguing with people from the perspective that ITNSIGNIF is not real, sometimes rudely so (
"Wikipedia doesn't care whether Natg 19 considers something important"
) is disruptive. Natg was simply following agreed upon processes and didn't do anything incorrect here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- ITNSIGNIF exists on top of sitewide policies, not as a replacement for them. ITN doesn't decide if something is encyclopedic, ITN simply decides what to feature. Yes, it is subjective, but so is the entire rest of the main page (nothing more subjective than the "sufficiently interesting" criteria of DYK). So are the sitewide notability guidelines; what is notable or not notable is not always so black and white, hence why it's a source of endless debate. ITN having a set of subjective criteria for determining which content to feature is perfectly fine and in no way a LOCALCONSENSUS vio. I understand you do not recognize ITNSIGNIF and would prefer that ITN as a whole did not exist, but making this known in most every ITN thread you participate in and arguing with people from the perspective that ITNSIGNIF is not real, sometimes rudely so (
- Then ITNSIGNIF violates policy and its enforcement is disruptive editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't disagree with this, as this would allow for more objectivity at ITN instead of just hand waving why something should/should not be posted. But this is not how we do things here, as WP:ITNSIGNIF says to use "local consensus" to determine post-ability.Natg 19 (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Whether something is encyclopedic is decided by WP:N. Consensus is decided by WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, which says that consensus is determined through
- While we use sources to make sure something is covered in the news, we still use consensus of editors to determine if what's reported in the news is significant enough to post for ITN, because being an encyclopedia, not everything that newspapers considers important are considered encyclopedic. Masem (t) 19:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't care whether Natg 19 considers something important. It's about whether the sources consider it important. Which they do. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but for me this summit is not "significant" enough, without a clear result. Putin and Trump have met (or had discussions) in the past. Natg 19 (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose summit with no results and covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose a meeting about the ending the war is covered by ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Well-written article, the subject is in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose simply because the summit lead to no meaningful agreement. TwistedAxe [contact] 19:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Good faith nom, but part of a broader topic already covered by ongoing. In most cases, you'd be right to say that the media covering something and the media finding something to be important are the same thing. This is a rare exception where most coverage of the event seems to be focused on how remarkably unremarkable this event was. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:51, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing came of it and it's covered by Ongoing. To the point about media coverage, the Texas redistricting issue got even more coverage and we didn't post it. Let's not become an American politics news ticker. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Support per nom and Thebiguglyalien. Subject is of international interest, not just the USA.Jusdafax (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per everyone above. EF5 22:01, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose I had mentioned this in another thread as the exact thing which we shouldn't post. Coverage of an event by the news media isn't itself an ITN worthy criteria, we as editors can decide the notability on precedent, policies, guidelines, impact etc. All of these tell us that this a perfect fit for WP:NTRUMP beyond being already covered by ongoing - nothing was expected off it and nothing came off it. This doesn't raise the bar beyond routine RS-UK coverage to be posted separately and let us leave it at that. Gotitbro (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose: It is a Good faith nomination, however it's not always a trump news per WP:ITNTRUMP. ROY is WAR Talk! 06:09, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per most above and close per WP:SNOW. Departure– (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
RD: Bob Simpson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:
- Nominated by HiLo48 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by QalasQalas (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: Australian Test cricketer and coach HiLo48 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose playing career sections look good, but cleanup and more sources needed for coaching career sections. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 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: