Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

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.

Ahmed al-Sharaa in December 2024
Ahmed al-Sharaa

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

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]
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

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.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

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]
Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Archives

[edit]

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

Sections

[edit]

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

February 2

[edit]
February 2, 2025 (2025-02-02) (Sunday)

Disasters and accidents

RD: Tony Martin

[edit]
Article: Tony Martin (farmer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News
Credits:

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: British farmer at the centre of self-defence with firearms case  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

[edit]
February 1, 2025 (2025-02-01) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

RD: Fay Vincent

[edit]
Article: Fay Vincent (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

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 Commissioner of Baseball. 240F:7A:6253:1:48D:4DF6:97F:DE1E (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Zakia Jafri

[edit]
Article: Zakia Jafri (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times
Credits:

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: I haven't had a chance to clean this up, posting for attention. At first glance sourcing looks okay but a copyedit to remove flowery language is needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Work!: Copyedit, as well as expansion may be needed to satisfy WP:ITNQUALITY. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 09:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: Ready for RD, as many issues have now been resolved. Khaatir (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Trump tariffs

[edit]
Article: Second Trump tariffs (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States imposes tariffs of 25 percent on most goods from Canada and Mexico, and 10 percent on goods from China (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ U.S. president Donald Trump imposes tariffs of 25 percent on most goods from Canada and Mexico, and of 10 percent on goods from China.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The United States imposes near-universal tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, prompting Canada and Mexico to launch retaliatory tariffs against the United States.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A trade war begins after U.S. President Donald Trump imposes near-universal tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, prompting Canada and Mexico to launch retaliatory tariffs against the United States.
News source(s): Bloomberg News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Nominating because the tariffs against China in 2018 were posted. The tariffs are not in effect yet. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on Tuesday (when they are set to take effect) — I'd usually oppose ITN posting Trump's numerous actions but this is a major move from the world's largest economy on its three largest trading partners that could completely reshape global supply routes and production. DecafPotato (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment — I've added an altblurb that I'd prefer. DecafPotato (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC) Changing my support to alt blurbs covering the retaliatory tariffs as well. DecafPotato (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support with retargeting to 2025 United States–Canada–Mexico trade war instead per DecafPotato and RachelTensions below. The Second Trump Tariffs article is not NPOV, the more general article about the trade conflict is better.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this Personisinsterest (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for Tuesday per above. A lot could happen between now and then. Mexico and Canada are already announcing retaliatory measures. And we have yet to hear from China. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the Ministry of Commerce, China will file a case against the U.S. in the World Trade Organization and "take corresponding countermeasures". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be interested to see how Wall Street takes all of this when the markets open on Monday morning. At least one of the super banks seems to be rigging for foul weather. JP Morgan Chase is airlifting $4 billion in gold bullion to its New York vaults. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for Tuesday, and the article needs to be expanded (and likely retitled) to reflect the entire trade war - not simply Trump's tariffs, but the responses by both Canada and Mexico, before posting it. In other words, oppose on completeness until the full reaction by Canada/Mexico is accounted for. And then oppose current blurbs for being too US centric. Donald Trump does not even need to be mentioned - this is a full on trade war between three countries, and there should be no special treatment of one. Recommend the following as a blurb: The United States imposes tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, which impose retaliatory tariffs on the US. - needs some workshopping, but needs to include all three countries and the fact they retaliate. The exact percentage/scope of the tariffs is not important. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support new altblurb 2 with retaliatory tariffs per berchanhimez. Not sure how to word it semantically, but the blurb needs to make clear this is now an active trade war, as opposed to one-way tariffs by the USA on these three countries. The retaliatory tariffs are essential to paint a full picture; the current blurb is misleading by telling only 50% of the story. FlipandFlopped ツ 05:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Put in an altblurb 2. Per above, feel free to edit the verbiage if someone can think of a better way to phrase it - I just think it is important the retaliatory tariffs are mentioned for NPOV purposes. FlipandFlopped ツ 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I think it, perhaps adding a small note about the scope would be useful. Rather than the percent, I'd consider adding "universal" or "near universal" - to clarify for people reading the blurb that they are on all (or almost all) items that are being traded, rather than targeted at specific industries/problematic companies/etc. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "near-universal" would be good to include DecafPotato (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added that to the alt. Also, friendly reminder to all that changing the initial indentation between colons : and asterisks * can break screen readers among other aspects of accessibility, and is able to be fixed by anyone, so I've done so here throughout this thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lots of quality problems with the nominated article including an orange cleanup tag. The article has poor tone and weak content and its scope is unclear. The topic seems so mired in ongoing US politics that early and easy resolution seems unlikely. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is very likely only the opening salvo of a broader trade war. Canada, Mexico and China will probably retaliate, leading to a tit for tat. And the EU may be slapped with tariffs any day as well, leading to more of the same... Yakikaki (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I've created 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico, which focuses on the U.S. trade war with Canada and Mexico specifically instead of on Trump's tariff policy more broadly. I think it would probably be better suited for the ITN blurb. DecafPotato (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with retarget to 2025 United States–Canada–Mexico trade war, which is well written and in good shape. RachelTensions (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb 3 with new target article. Pinging users who opposed on quality or prior blurb phrasing to see if they now support with the new target article, because I think we should have this lined up for a Tuesday posting if there is consensus on notability: DecafPotato, Andrew Davidson, The C of E, berchanhimez. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose :mention the retaliation (For which canada's is explicit and mexico is due)Sportsnut24 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern California Wildfires contained

[edit]
This does not seem to be supported by other editors. Schwede66 16:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: January 2025 Southern California wildfires (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The unusually destructive and deadly fires that burned the Greater Los Angeles area has now been fully contained. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.nbcnews.com/weather/wildfires/palisades-eaton-fire-la-contained-rcna188338
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Wildfires getting contained aren't usually ITN worthy. However given most major news sources are reporting on it, and that the wildfires were unusually deadly (28 dead) and costly (billions in damages) I think it is ITN worthy.
The discussion above 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.

2025 Omdurman market attack

[edit]
Article: 2025 Omdurman market attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An attack at a market in Omdurman, Sudan, kills 56 people and wounds 158 others. (Post)
News source(s): France24 Iraqi News Washington Post The Guardian
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The event has articles about it from several news stations worldwide. While I think there could be more larger sources in the news sources it is still a WAR CRIME and is a part of the greater escalation of the Battle of Khartoum and the overall war itself. Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Horrible/horrific event, now becoming internationally known and being transmitted by some of the most reliable sources worldwide. Big escalation as stated before, and shelling is becoming progressively worse now with hundreds affected. NuestroBrasil (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - @The Kip just because its covered by ongoing does not mean significant events cant be covered in ITN, biggest example is Israel-Palestine. Support because 56 people dying is very signifcant. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SimpleSubCubicGraph we haven’t posted any Gaza war blurbs outside of the initial attacks and the ceasefire, which de facto ended the war for now. The Kip (contribs) 20:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the Sudanese Civil War, a massacre that occurred after the Battle of Geneina was blurbed. However, that massacre was much deadlier than this attack. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember nominating that specific occurance. That massacre if I'm sure killed over 10,000-20,000+ but there is to note that was the last time any article connected with the Sudanese civil war was blurbed at all. Also like this happening it was transmitted and made known by several reliable sources. At the end of the day these are two horrible occurances.Vamos Palmeiras (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per The Kip and Andrew Davidson. Covered by ongoing and in a battle that has claimed the lives of 60,000+ so far, this unfortunately doesn’t seem too out of the ordinary… though I wish I could say otherwise. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 19:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per The Kip, Andrew, and mike_gigs, both sides of the Sudanese Civil War are sadly committing atrocities all of the time and this is simply one of them, most likely not even the most major. --SpectralIon 19:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While I've been away from Wikipedia for quite some time I've looked into wars recently and this war crime as stated by @Vamos Palmeiras is quite grave and while it might not be rare in the conflict as a whole, it is rare in Khartoum which is having as also said before a ESCALATION in the battle. In the article it is also stated that the Rapid Support Forces are aiming to retake territory and most likely this was perpetrated by them to start this campaign. This is what I may call the start of a Butterfly effect! Subaru2000 (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean support given the media coverage over and above the rest of the war This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Routine in total war. Sushidude21! (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Horst Köhler

[edit]
Article: Horst Köhler (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau
Credits:

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: Federal President of Germany from 2004 to 2010. One of the most popular politicians in Germany at the time. Article could be expanded a bit, but otherwise is in a good shape. Based on how coverage and notability evolves, this maybe could warrant a blurb too, but I'm not too sure about that. CDE34RFV (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blurb. Former president of G7 country. Is written to have been popular president. Director of IMF. Very important figure. BilboBeggins (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added blurb to nomination. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb President of Germany is a mostly ceremonial position, and just being a director of IMF means nothing. The article gives no explanation to why he was a major figure to support a blurb, and what I'm seeing from English sources covering his death, nothing in his bio stands out as being a major figure. Oppose RD on quality issues. --Masem (t) 12:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, why should former Germany president not blurbed, when Fillipino actress, unknown in the world, was blurbed? BilboBeggins (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilboBeggins: Do not drag in repeated comparisons which would prolong discussions unnecessarily. If you have questions, use talk pages of relevant information/help pages or user talk pages, or any of the multiple ways to get help. Thanks, 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 19:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb The president of Germany isn’t elected through a popular vote, so being merely a former officeholder isn’t significant. As for the other indicators of significance that justify a blurb, I agree with Masem that there’s nothing exceptional in his biography.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    His commitment for Africa was exceptional. Grimes2 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there should be sources that explain how all that is part of his legacy and demonstrate how he was a great figure. Again, the sources in English on his death that I see do note his attention on Africa in the later part of his life, but nothing that indicates a major factor, much less that being appropriately summarized in the article. Masem (t) 13:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's comment: Weak oppose blurb per above. I might've left open the possibility, but I myself don't think that this death is blurb-worthy. He's had some notable influence, but wielded no sufficient power to merit a blurb. Support RD once ready. CDE34RFV (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article is in good enough shape for RD. In terms of blurb, while I do support blurbing the death of G20 leaders, I feel that for Germany that would fall under the chancellor and not the president since it's mostly a ceremonial role. However, I could be swayed if the article had a thorough legacy section as to how he possibly became an influential figure in the country and abroad. A little mention of it in the lead could be nice. What got me to think this might be blurbworthy was seeing how at some point he was more popular than his chancellor such as Merkel (which is something IMO). However it'd be nice for his article to reflect his notability in the role or his influence. I could even see an argument being made if he had a massive/influential impact as International Monetary Fund director as well, but that would have to be thoroughly stated in the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD: Blurb him only if he had his personal legacy and not because he was President of Germany, not all got one. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 13:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]
January 31, 2025 (2025-01-31) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

2025 Balkan retail boycotts

[edit]
Article: 2025 Balkan retail boycotts (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A series of boycotts against retail stores in several Southeast European countries begins. (Post)
News source(s): IntelliNews
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient notability and quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above. 64.114 etc 04:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No one cares about a bunch of people boycotting some small supermarket retail in the Balkans. Nestle has had an active boycott of over 40 years yet we dont cover it ever. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the supermarket retail is small, a boycott where 89.5% of a country is participating is still notable. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, leaning oppose - At the moment, we're only seeing the proposed action, not the impact. Calling for a boycott is easy; making change with one is difficult. (Which is why people are still boycotting Nestle after 40 years - it's had minimal effect on policy.) I'm not against this in principle, but we'd need to see it actually achieve something. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Government measures are being introduced all the time. Some of them didn’t pay off, so the boycotts call for different measures. This is well-covered in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This doesn't seem all that notable to me, but it did have an impact on prices, so I guess. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose for now. Currently the article only discusses the direct impact of the boycotts in Croatia, not any other countries. Until we see how it impacts nations on a wider scale I don’t know if this is notable enough to post. I also feel like the article is a big vague in places about what exactly is being boycotted and thwart the impacts have been. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 14:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The boycott in other countries just started on January 30… Let's wait for updates. ArionStar (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Erwin

[edit]
Article: John Erwin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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 voice actor, notable for that of He-Man from the 70s/80s cartoons. While he died back in December, his family did not publically announce this until today. A few unsourced statements. Masem (t) 21:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Philadelphia Learjet crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A Learjet 55 crashes (explosion pictured) into multiple buildings and houses in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States, killing at least seven people and injuring over nineteen others. (Post)
News source(s): CBSThe Times
Credits:

 Personisinsterest (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Article looks good. Not wanting to compare (but), this is less serious than the Potomac crash, however, the nature of 'turning into a fireball and dropping into the ground to burn multiple people' is clearly unusual. As it is, that makes it newsworthy for me - it's probably subjective but then I would assume when more details emerge about why that unusualness happened, it may solidify the argument. Kingsif (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for at least a day after the crash. Not much information is known right now, and usually it will take a few days to get more or at the very least a day. I support the notability as it crashed into restaurants, buildings, houses and next to a mall. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support, the Potomac Crash had not that much information, yet added to the in the news ection. Shaneapickle (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, a small plane crashing in a dense urban area and starting fires is definitely newsworthy. Chorchapu (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's sad, but six people just doesn't cut it. And yes, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is not a thing, but we can also apply our sense. Small aircraft often crash and this accident is only gaining attention due to it being a more urban area. Bremps... 17:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support since I'm not sure if 7 deaths is enough to justify a blurb, even if this is a tragedy. --SpectralIon 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suport a joint blurb with the Potomac accident. ArionStar (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    should not be put together because they are not related. The news must be assessed individually. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I believe this is an incident that should achieve ITN stature. Even without including WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, this is a decently sized number of people immedietelty effected by this disaster as pointed out above by User:INeedSupport. Additionally, this is an incident that would effect both the US and Mexico, with the incident being responded to by the Mexican president. Lastly, whilst I am aware there are many small-plane accidents a year, its more uncommon for an accident like this to happen in such a desenly-populated area as this, which I believe contributes to notability. Side note: Should the article be posted, the blurb should be changed to mention the flight name instead of Learjet 55. CaptainGalaxy 03:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article in good shape, this is making global news headlines and planes falling from the sky onto neighborhoods in the U.S., let alone around the world, is a bit rare (especially given the back-to-back nature of airplane accidents as of late in the U.S.). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As noted, small aircraft crash more frequently. Lasting encyclopedic impact of this one? The 2008 Mexico City Learjet crash only got posted because of the extreme prominence of the passengers, and even that met with resistance. Moscow Mule (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[edit]
January 30, 2025 (2025-01-30) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and Crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

Constitutional reform in Nicaragua

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Rosario Murillo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following the approval of a constitutional reform by the National Assembly, Rosario Murillo (pictured) becomes Co-President of Nicaragua alongside her husband Daniel Ortega. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Nicaragua's National Assembly has approved a constitutional reform turning the country into an apparent ‘diarchy’ in which the Ortega Murillo couple assumes full powers. Centre Murillo's article because unfortunately there is no article in English about the constitutional reform and it is ITNR. I think her article is not so bad and surely the blurb can be improved. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Edcel Lagman

[edit]
Article: Edcel Lagman (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/01/30/2418023/liberal-party-president-edcel-lagman-passes-away-82
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Filipino politician. 65.93.223.182 (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) AfD banning debate

[edit]
Consensus to post a debate will not develop. Stephen 00:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: Prohibited political parties in Germany (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Germany's Bundestag debates banning Alternative for Germany. (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:
 Chetsford (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose until it is or isn't banned. If it is, this could be a major turning point for far-right politics in Germany - the steady rise of the AFD to now will be brought to perhaps a major downfall or a meteoric rise of right-wing sentiment, depending on how it's handled and how involved parties react. In other words, I do believe it could be blurbworthy depending on what happens. Departure– (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, but a ban of the AFD should be blurbed due to the size of the party Ion.want.uu (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

(Ready) RD: Sammy Acaylar

[edit]
Article: Sammy Acaylar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Philstar Manila Bulletin
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Filipino volleyball coach TNM101 (chat) 17:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Leif "Loket" Olsson

[edit]
Article: Leif "Loket" Olsson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2], [3]
Credits:

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: Death of one of Sweden’s most beloved television presenters. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission

[edit]
Consensus to post appointments to a committee will not develop. Stephen 00:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: Fiji Truth and Reconciliation Commission (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Fiji has appointed members to its Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Post)
News source(s): Fiji Village RNZ
Credits:
 IdiotSavant (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not 'in the News'!: No news source provided. Nothing relevant appears when searched 'Fiji' on google. When the title of article itself is searched, still no news reports to establish notability. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 07:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I'd borked the template. Its been covered in Fiji and NZ, with some coverage in PNG.--IdiotSavant (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing it out. Earlier writing 'source=' instead of 'sources=' would result in sources not appearing. But now it is fixed, and either could be used. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 11:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masems arguments Ion.want.uu (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

RD: Dick Button

[edit]
Article: Dick Button (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline Hollywood
Credits:

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: US figure skater and sports personality. Article has gaps in sourcing. Masem (t) 03:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose death should ideally drop the "is survived by" stuff if they aren't notable. Means of death, if known, should be added. The next paragraph mentioning the plane crash that killed two figure skaters the day before should also be brought into the same paragraph. Departure– (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Marianne Faithfull

[edit]
Article: Marianne Faithfull (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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: Singer and actress Tamsyn Acton (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Julius Chan

[edit]
Article: Julius Chan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4]
Credits:

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 Papua New Guinea's prime minister and founding father. Maybe even worth a blurb if expanded more. Nyanardsan (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Several uncited sections in total. Needs to be fixed before it qualifies for ITNRD recognition. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 16:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD for lack of sourcing, Oppose blurb as nothing to suggest he was a major figure via legacy, impact, or significance outside of being a national leader. Not all national leaders are necessarily major figures. Masem (t) 16:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality per Masem. Conditionally oppose blurb - I’ll be convinced to switch if the article can elaborate on his status as a founding father/major figure during the Bougainville conflict. The Kip (contribs) 19:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for lack of sourcing. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 07:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per all above. Ping me if it changes.BabbaQ (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2024 YR4

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Stephen 22:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: 2024 YR4 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The newly discovered asteroid 2024 YR4 has a greater than 1% chance of impacting Earth in 2032. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times, Guardian, space.com, IAWN
Credits:
 Renerpho (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

January 29

[edit]
January 29, 2025 (2025-01-29) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Richard Williamson (bishop)

[edit]
Article: Richard Williamson (bishop) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Telegraph
Credits:

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: Schismatic far-right Catholic bishop (formerly SSPX). A handful of CNs but article is not in dreadful shape. Highly controversial figure. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Work: I though of nominating the article before and fixed a thing myself, but it still has lots of things to make right. Many tags related to citations, unreliability and think some of it could be original research. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 07:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Alexandr Kirsanov

[edit]
Article: Alexandr Kirsanov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

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: Figure skater killed in the plane crash. Stub. Curbon7 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed!: The plane crash should not be burdened to take over notability of everyone killed in it. The article is stubby. Oppose on quality. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 07:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Inna Volyanskaya

[edit]
Article: Inna Volyanskaya (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

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: Figure skater killed in the plane crash. Stub. Curbon7 (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed!: The plane crash should not be burdened to take over notability of everyone killed in it. The article is a stub. Oppose on quality. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 07:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Vadim Naumov

[edit]
Article: Vadim Naumov (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:

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: Champion figure skater was onboard the American Airlines flight with Shishkova (nominated separately below). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Evgenia Shishkova

[edit]
Article: Evgenia Shishkova (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NPR
Credits:

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: Champion figure skater was onboard the American Airlines flight with Naumov (nominated separately above). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(NEEDS ATTENTION!) RD: Salwan Momika

[edit]
Article: Salwan Momika (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Iraqi anti-Islam activist Salwan Momika involved in the 2023 Quran burnings in Sweden is assassinated in his apartment in Södertälje. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Hindu, NYT
Credits:

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: Atheist anti-Islam activist Assaisnated. Maybe not a blurb, but RD-able for sure. Well cited. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 11:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 13:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a Blurb is appropriate.BabbaQ (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb: The manner of his death seems notable enough. He was an activist that gained a lot of media attention. Prodrummer619 (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support a blurb for this article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose blurring that article. It's a short article with a bloat from way too much in the reactions section. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) American Airlines Flight 5342 mid-air collision

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Potomac River mid-air collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ American Airlines Flight 5342 crashes on approach over the Potomac River, Virginia, United States, killing an unknown number of passengers. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American Eagle Flight 5342 collides with a helicopter over the Potomac River, Virginia, United States, killing an unknown number of passengers on both aircraft.
News source(s): CNN, Reuters, BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Unknown number of casualties, but it certainly appears that this will be a mass fatality incident, sadly. The first commercial plane crash on US soil since 2009. RockstoneSend me a message! 03:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait for details regarding victims/survivors/circumstances to become more clear, and for the article to update as such. An utterly horrifying day for my home - I was in the vicinity of DCA just a few hours ago. The Kip (contribs) 03:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added altblurb to clarify it was a collision. The Kip (contribs) 03:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's awful to hear about this. Per the video, I doubt there will be many survivors.
Side note: Rockstone, you beat me to ITN by a mere three minutes. Well done. JayCubby 03:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for more details as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate to air on the side of caution, but new details are coming in every few minutes. This is being covered by global networks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - As per above. TheHuman630 (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2. Mid-air collisions involving commercial aircraft are rare and notable. -insert valid name here- (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say wait, knowing damn well all onboard died here. Write that down as a support vote once the obvious is confirmed. I definitely support using the CCTV footage in the blurb - Wikipedia is not censored and a short video showing the event going down is much more relevant than an image of the plane involved. Departure– (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's admittedly grainy (but not as bad as when the screen of a monitor is filmed by someone with Parkinson's), but does the job. JayCubby 03:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just wow SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although maybe wait a little bit until we get more info on deaths and such. This is the first major aviation incident in the US in 16 years, meaning that this accident will likely be extremely notable in the future. Definitely warrants being on ITN. interstatefive  04:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-air collision ... it's not been confirmed it's an accident. And the video linked above of the collision doesn't look like an accident - I don't see how the helicopter didn't see that plane coming. How do you fly into the side of well lit plane? Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the press conference, 4 hours later, they couldn't identify any survivors. And it's been reported that helicopter was on a training flight - so that might explain what the helicopter pilot was doing. (at the same time, this seemed to have been posted too fast). Nfitz (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was pre-maturely posted for sure, but at this point is doesn't matter. There arenot survivors, so 63 deaths is notable neough.Sportsnut24 (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is never a need to rush an ITN blurb to post when there is key information missing - we are not a news ticker. This should not have been posted as soon as it was until we had an idea of the number of fatalities. Obviously once that is known, then there's not an issue with it, so it doesn't make sense to pull when it will be put back, but please let us not be rushing on posting events without the normal thoroughness we expect for details of other blurbs. --Masem (t) 05:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this be ITN if there were no deaths? I would still think so - a mid-air collision of two aircraft (whether fixed wing or otherwise) is so rare nowadays that it happening is the newsworthy event. I agree that it was not necessary to include "unknown casualties" at the time of posting. But the fatalities could be updated as information comes in, like with any other ITN blurb. I don't see why waiting to confirm someone died was necessary when this would've been (and is) newsworthy on its own for being such a rare occurrence, regardless of the deaths. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because ITN is about featuring quality articles that happen to be in the news, not to report news as it happens. Unless there was already an established article, it takes some reasonable time for a quality article to be built up, and that includes waiting for the bulk of the details from actual news reports to roll in and have a substantial how-and-why about the event, during which the article would be undergoing a lot of editing so its near impossible to judge quality. There's no way in the hour this was posted that enough details were known to have a stable, quality article. At this time (now about 12 hrs out), there's more than enough that we have a reasonably good article that while likely still will have high rates of editing, has all the core details that would be expected to showcase it as a quality article and would be more resilient to new edits. — Masem (t) 13:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Posted after less than an hour and with most key information missing? This isn’t a news ticker and there is no rush to post something just because it’s happened in the US. - SchroCat (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What was posted is not liable to be wrong, and it's a really significant event. The rush is not because it's American, but because it's a plane crash that may very well have killed 75. JayCubby 05:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But, key is that WP nor ITN is a newspaper. ITN is here to feature quality articles that are in the news. Aircrashes like this are the type of article that routine has a high quality product after some time as details filter in, so its common to post them, but this was posted before any confirmed number of deaths or survivors, a key data point, was known, so for all purposes, the article was not yet at the quality we'd expect. In under 12 hrs from the event, I would expect those to have settled into place, and then it would make sense to have judged the quality of the article and post then. Posting without that key info was a bad decision, though because we know the details will be added, not a reason to pull at this point. Just something to not repeat. Masem (t) 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Nonsense. I’ve seen bigger disasters and events happen in places like Africa and not passed at ITN. The geography is a damned clear metric when posting way too quickly on this. As to ‘not liable to be wrong’: that’s phooey. It’s incomplete which with anywhere else in the world would receive calls to wait before posting. ITN IS NOT A NEWS TICKER. - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the geography that determines how quickly it's promoted, the availability of sources, or the relative interest of editors? I do think it's hastier than most, but not to the point of being faulty.
    Though I think we may have posted it before it made its way to the NYT's top spot. We're not a news ticker, we're faster than one. JayCubby 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Faster than a news ticker? That’s such a ridiculous boast: do you have any idea what an encyclopaedia is? It’s about as far away from a news ticker as you can imagine. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would do you better to read the fundamental WP:NOTNEWS policy. Gotitbro (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: This isn't ITN-worthy just because people died. It's also ITN-worthy as a mid-air collision between two aircraft - which is exceedingly rare. Even if by some miracle everyone survived, it would still be ITN-worthy. For clarity, I would've supported posting as soon as the article on the event was minimally complete (i.e. what happened and what is known at the time). There is no need to wait for the article to be complete, because it never will be. Arbitrary "gates" such as "wait for confirmation someone died" may be reasonable for an event that would not otherwise be ITN-worthy. But for an event like this that is ITN-worthy regardless of deaths, there is no use waiting. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did I mention "just because people died"? There is significant information missing and this has been fast-posted (less than an hour). I get it's only newsworthy because it happened in the US, but this was posted too quickly when not enough details were known. As to mid-air collisions being "extremely rare", they're not all that rare, although they may be uncommon. Just noting that neither the 2024 Lumut mid-air collision or 2023 Alaska mid-air collision (to take two recent examples) made the front page. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How "complete" must the article be? What "details" must be known before it can be posted? Was the article actually incomplete? And they're uncommon when involving airliners, which is the comparison to be made here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can be blurb be changed to "collides with a military helicopter...near Washington DC"? The accident did not occur in DC, but nearby, and want to emphasize that it was a military helicopter. Natg 19 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The posted version said four people had been rescued. That's the problem with going off half-cocked on an overly rushed promotion. We're not a news ticker - we can never hope to be - which means we don't have the same levels of fact checking and confirmation that they do, which is why it's always best to wait more than an hour for both the situation and the article to develop. Half-baked articles carrying major errors don't make us look good in the eyes of the world. - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The collision occurred over Washington DC, @Natg 19. According to Geography of Washington, D.C. (and King Charles I in the 1630s), the boundary between D.C. and Virginia is such that the entire river is part of Washington DC, and it only becomes Virginia at the shoreline. Nfitz (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absurd rush to post (another phenomenon of Wikipedians trying to be the first which does not an encyclopedia make), second behind Queen Elizabeth's death I suppose though atleast that article was an FA rather than a newly minted one with half the info. And WP:TROUTing Ad Orientem especially when so many editors cautioned waiting despite voicing support on notability. Gotitbro (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rush was really unneeded. 'Unknown' should never have went to the Main Page. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 09:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Only 2 editors stayed their wait. The consensus was to post it right then. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not need to explicitly say stay, most comments then and now clearly imply uncertainty about facts. Admin judgment would be to not rush a Main Page posting after less than an hour of discussion, ITN is no exception. Gotitbro (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 56 minutes between time of nomination and time of posting, for anyone keeping track. Bit fast, in my opinion. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh Why do we do this over and over again? We know it's going to be posted, there's no rush, we are not a news ticker. Incidentally, the version that was posted onto the main page contained the phrase "At least four survivors were reported to have been recovered from the water and taken to local hospitals" which doesn't actually appear to be sourced as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Aaron Liu: Combined edits of 3 editors who said Wait= 97k, Combined edits of (9+1) editors who said Support= 23.5k (excluding only Knowledgekid87). In other words, those were bunch of novice editors, decision should be made in terms of consensus based on reason and guidelines, than just counting number of votes. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 12:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add, none of the support !votes at the time of posting expressed any evaluation of the quality of the article, only "omg this is a big air accident". Quality review is essential requirement for ITN items and that clearly wasn't taken into account in posting. — Masem (t) 13:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That means the consensus was flawed, not that there wasn't a consensus. If I was in this position as a "wait" !vote, I would add a reply questioning the article quality. Here, it seems like the !voters just dropped their doubts on the consensus. I understand that Ad Orientem probably should've IAR'd, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no way a consensus can be reached in an hour. Otherwise, that means consensus gets determine by who happened to show up first. Even the recent SNOW closures took several hours before closed that way. — Masem (t) 13:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are you to judge consensus based on edit count alone? """Novices'"""" (several thousand edits and years of experience still makes you a newbie somehow?) arguments should be treated less just because the editors who said wait theoretically have a larger edit count combined (which btw is inflated; most of them have a few thousand edits)? That type of WP:Editcountitis behavior should not be used to dismiss consensus just because you don't like the result. — Knightoftheswords 14:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am no one. A novice pretty much like you. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 14:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Novices, with regards to ITN at least. Many names I saw frequently were missing, but few I never saw were not. No one came up with points that are raised now, after it was posted. Few sure were quite experienced, but not exactly in ITN. Few were newbies, altogether the 'consensus' seemed not quite thoroughly thought of. Also I feel quite unconscious bystander effect was involved. Keep cool, thanks -𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 14:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Experience is mostly irrelevant. I've seen excellent rationales from newbie editors and crappy ones from veterans. Admittedly, new editors are less likely to grasp the fact that ITN isn't a 24/7 news ticker, which some did here, but otherwise I don't see the relevance. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit count and experience doesn't matter when it comes to consensus forming. As long as said editor has a legitimate reasoning for their vote then it should count as part of the decision-making process. Rager7 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering everyone's comments above, I cannot help but wonder why we couldn't have a sort of 'minimum time limit' for posting ITN's. We could avoid so many of these incidents if there was one. Instead of just citing WP:NOTNEWS, we could just have a simple criterion on WP:ITN/A that blurbs should only be posted after a certain time, maybe two hours or so, even after there is consensus present. This would have two advantages IMO, i) We would not have these discussions again and ii) There would probably be sufficient info about the event mentioned in the article for an accurate blurb. I know this might be controversial, but we need to find a way to end these unproductive debates that occur when admins post early (Ad Orientem, no offense intended) . TNM101 (chat) 12:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the very rare occasion when there's clearly zero article issues and the topic is obviously going to be posted (i.e. death of Queen Elizabeth II, all information was known, article was an FA) then I suggest we should be waiting at least long enough for the actual bloody facts to be clear before posting. As I said above, this one was posted with a sentence that suggests there were survivors; whilst I doubt if anyone related to the victims was checking Wikipedia as their first news source on the accident, I wonder how many people saw that? Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed from the ITN posting that there were many a survivors and surprised to see an ITN update so fast decided to check the discussion, only then I learned that no one was likely to survive (none did). Posting with half the info definitely did mislead Main Page viewers in that period. Unacceptable as an encyclopedia. Gotitbro (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think most of the comments now are relevant to posting of this, and not the ITN. This could be done on ITN's talk page. Even for the fact, this could be closed. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 16:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start a new topic on the talk page TNM101 (chat) 16:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started a new topic on the talk page, please direct your comments there TNM101 (chat) 17:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm commenting here instead of making a separate nomination at this point, but both Vadim Naumov and Evgenia Shishkova were onboard the flight and are presumed deceased. I didn't know if they should be listed in the RD section or not given the are already mentioned in the crash article. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add noms about them separate. Definitely.BabbaQ (talk) 16:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That plane that crashed several years ago with a major football team on it, we included one or two names from it in the crash blurb. I think we can work those two names in. — Masem (t) 17:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though I just checked the two bios and both are missing sources, so this likely will not happen soon. — Masem (t) 17:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mavai Senathirajah

[edit]
Article: Mavai Senathirajah (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Daily Mirror Sri Lanka
Credits:

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: prominent Tamil politician in Sri Lanka and was a key political figure who advocated for separatist Tamil Eelam. Abishe (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support: The article is well cited, but could be expanded a bit more. Thanks, 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 09:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article doesn't discuss his work when holding the positions. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 09:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) IShowSpeed honored as Mayor of Lima

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Fairly obvious WP:SNOW. The Kip (contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: IShowSpeed (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ IShowSpeed is declared honorary Mayor of Lima for an hour and receives the Ambassador of Lima Award during the city's 490th anniversary celebrations, with a massive crowd chanting his signature "SIUU". (Post)
News source(s): Complex, Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
 sheagolddigger (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose and SNOW close per all above. We don't post any mayoral election on ITN or even Current Events I don't think, even for capital cities and other large and important communities. Being the honorary mayor for one hour doesn't seem to be any more important. Departure– (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

(@Stephen: Ready) 2025 Light Air Services Beechcraft 1900 crash

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Light Air Services Beechcraft 1900 crash (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A plane crash (aircraft pictured) in Unity state, South Sudan, kills 20 of the 21 occupants onboard. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficient enough now? ArionStar (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is good enough now & the # of deaths makes this notable. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Second deadliest crash this year. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per above. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 14:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Notability and quality satisfied. Very sad. Bremps... 17:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) ECOWAS

[edit]
No consensus to post a duplicate. Stephen 23:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: ECOWAS (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger formally exit the West African regional bloc ECOWAS (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The three members of the Alliance of Sahel States, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, formally exit ECOWAS
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

Article updated
 CMD (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support it is formal now. shouldnt have been on announcement. Also togo/benin (?) was to join them as an observer.Sportsnut24 (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The countries leaving said that it was effective immediately. It's not clear that this latest formality has any practical effect as the nom's source says "The remaining member states were called upon to continue to grant citizens from the three countries the privileges of membership, including the free movement of people and goods." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is posted, ECOWAS should be expanded to Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as it was when previously posted. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 14:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - These states have not been in ECOWAS for over a year, and we have posted this blurb two times already PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt 1. This is much more significant than an election, which affects one country, where it’s pretty much guaranteed the winner will be inaugurated. Will have massive ramifications for the region, as countries can now more easily switch neo-colonial partner from France to Russia
Kowal2701 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

(Posted) Hōshōryū Tomokatsu

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Hōshōryū Tomokatsu (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In sumo, Hōshōryū (pictured) becomes the 74th yokozuna. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hōshōryū (pictured) becomes sumo's 74th yokozuna.
News source(s): Kyodo News, Japan Times, AFP
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Nomination per WP:ITN/R. Blurb uses the single name Hōshōryū, which is how sumo wrestlers are usually referred to (by their shikona, or ring name). JRHorse (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITNR and the article is of sufficient quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stephen: Can you add {{transl}} or just italize yokozuna as it is a not a common english per MOS:JAPAN. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Stephen 11:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting note Not sure why for this and Terunofuji's ITN promotion entries they include the full shikona/ring name when none of the news sources, nor even the official online banzuke [10] show it (unless you click through to a full bio). Would a piped link or redirect of solely the main part of the shikona not suffice? Omnifalcon (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because full name, not shikona, is used for official and ceremonial occasions, such as promotion. Stephen 00:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this? The 3 news sources used in this nomination only use the name Hoshoryu and not his surname. Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Prayag Kumbh Mela crowd crush

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Prayag Maha Kumbh Mela crowd crush (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A stampede during the Prayag Kumbh Mela (pictured) in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India, kills at least 30 people and injures more than 60 others. (Post)
Alternative blurb II: ​ A crowd crush during the Prayag Kumbh Mela (pictured) in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India, kills at least 30 people and injures more than 60 others.
News source(s): BBC,The Guardian,Al Jazeera, CNN Independent,NYTimes
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • For one, there is yet no confirmed deaths per the BBC running article. Second, given that there have been at least 6 of these events that have a had a crowd crush, that it seems like any single one is not more notable than the others. And with how little the other crowd crush articles contain (and seemingly failing NEVENT), it feels that this does not need to be a separate article from the article Prayag Kumbh Mela where there is a section on stampedes/crowd crush that would seem to be a better place to summarize that these events happen, that unfortunately people have died, but seems like is a given outcome with that many people in one place that it will happen. But that's all barring actually having a firm number of people injured or killed. Masem (t) 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait Article is nowhere near ready for the front page, and among other details, the death toll is mostly unknown at this point. The Kip (contribs) 04:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can wait until we have stronger words than "feared" for these tolls. Departure– (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Crowd crushes happen a lot more than you think. Not notable, crowd crushes are especially common in India. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we think that way, most of the disasters that occur in the world are common in India, so we won't post any of them… ArionStar (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ahmed al-Sharaa

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Ahmed al-Sharaa (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ahmed al-Sharaa (pictured) is appointed as president of Syria of the transitional government, succeeding Bashar al-Assad. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera.
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Ghazi Malik (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability - First president outside of the Assad regime in decades. Departure– (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITN/R. There is one CN tag on al-Sharaa's article though, but I don't see that being an issue that would prevent it being posted. Aydoh8[contribs] 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support First president since the fall of Assad regime. HurricaneEdgar 00:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITN/R. Good article. ArionStar (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a notable event for Syria, though I think the dissolution of HTS should be mentioned as well. Can I has Cheezburger? (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

[edit]
January 28, 2025 (2025-01-28) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Science and technology

(NEEDS ATTENTION!) RD: Marina Colasanti

[edit]
Article: Marina Colasanti (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): G1
Credits:

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.

 ArionStar (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose! Has been expanded since, thanks to ForsythiaJo, but the 'Works' section needs to be cited, with other improvements to quality. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 09:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: David Noel Ramírez Padilla

[edit]
Article: David Noel Ramírez Padilla (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://mexicodailypost.com/2025/01/29/david-noel-ramirez-padilla-rector-emeritus-of-the-tecnologico-de-monterrey-dies-at-75/
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Mexican academic administrator. 65.93.223.182 (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Muhammad bin Fahd Al Saud

[edit]
Article: Muhammad bin Fahd Al Saud (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Asharq Alawsat
Credits:

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: Saudi prince and governor of Eastern Province. 240F:7A:6253:1:683C:F9E5:E842:477D (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) XB-1 Supersonic

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Aydoh8[contribs] 00:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: Boom XB-1 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Boom Technology's XB-1 trijet (pictured) becomes the first private jet aircraft to break the sound barrier. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:
 ArionStar (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose! Before anything, the article quality is bad and filled with a variety of tags. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 13:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all that significant. Concorde did it more than 50 years ago. I'd support if the jet starts to be used in commercial settings. Ca talk to me! 14:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

(READY) Miloš Vučević resignation

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2024–2025 Serbian anti-corruption protests (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Miloš Vučević (pictured) resigns as prime minister of Serbia following anti-corruption protests over the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I aimed at Slovak Robert Fico, but I hit Serbian Vucevic. 😂 ArionStar (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further at this, I notice that the resignation has to be confirmed by the Parliament to be effective and that hasn't happened yet. I also get the impression that the President Vucic is an autocrat and target of the protests while the PM is just a scapegoat.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it'd still be nice to have a non-tagged article on the front page, assuming this gets posted. EF5 19:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) DeepSeek

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article: DeepSeek (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new open-source AI, DeepSeek, disrupts the market for AI technology (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The emergence of a new open-source AI, DeepSeek, wiped $1tn in value from the leading US tech index
Alternative blurb II: ​ The open-source LLM DeepSeek is released, performing at the same level as ChatGPT for one-tenth of the computing power
Alternative blurb III: ​ DeepSeek, an open-source LLM, tops global App Store downloads, triggering market reactions
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, DW, The Economist, Financial Times, The Guardian, TechCrunch
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This was the top read article yesterday as it's in the news for several reasons including a cyberattack, market crash and more. It is being compared to the Sputnik crisis. What I find interesting is that it's open source and uses open data like Common Crawl. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Once again, Andrew: our own readership levels for particular articles are not, and should not be, a source for what is in the news. While this morning's headlines are flashy, very little has actually happened. This story is 99% WP:CRYSTAL stuff. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Very little of "what" has actually happened? The stock market definitely dropped. All the models definitely got released. The app definitely got No.1 on the Apple app store. CRYSTAL? There's no prophecy in the article. pony in a strange land (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The stock market drop is only temporary and it's going to recover sooner than later. This really has no long-term impact, the only long-term impact I can see that this has is that it forces OpenAI and other companies to be less greedy and accept the fact that DeepSeek now exists on the market, but that's pretty much it. I'd argue this falls into Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. TwistedAxe [contact] 10:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The high readership is evidence that the topic is prominent in the news and the sources confirm this. ITN's primary purpose is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was a top-read article, that means readers that are interestered are able to find it without ITN's need to help. — Masem (t) 12:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So we shut down ITN? What the purpose of ITN if not to highlight articles readers might be interested in because they've come across them in the news? Khuft (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is about featuring high quality articles for WP's main page that happen to be in the news, not to be a news ticker to report anything that has happened in the news. --Masem (t) 13:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By the same token, I guess we shouldn't have posted the US presidential elections? Khuft (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I might not always agree with Andrew, but this nomination is spot on. It's major news in mainstream media, and it fulfils the primary objective of ITN: to guide readers to items that are in the news and that they might want to know more about. There's also no WP:CRYSTAL to it - DeepSeek has already upended the American strategy to contain China's technological development. It's in the news everywhere, it's a technological break-through in a key technology, it's a disruption to a key business sector, and it changes the geopolitical game. What more do we want from the articles we feature? Khuft (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. They've announced a decent advance in reducing CPU requirements and power consumption. That's it. This tool hasn't revolutionised anything yet and there hasn't been any third-party verification of the claims. The financial markets have over-reacted based on nothing more than speculation and paranoia among investors who have bet too much on US companies. We wouldn't post an ITN blurb every time an electric vehicle manufacturer brought out a model with improved range or similarly incremental technological advances. Modest Genius talk 12:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I saw DeepSeek first reported, the take-away message was that they had created their state-of-the-art AI remarkably cheaply, without needing the billions and trillions of capital that the US was announcing recently. If it's open source too then the barriers to entry in this field seem low – you mainly need a few smart people -- quality not quantity. Lowering the capital cost by orders of magnitude seems quite significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's the geopolitical angle that makes this noteworthy. After all those exports bans to restrict China's access to the latests chips, the DeepSeek announcement completely upends that policy. Khuft (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AI accelerators are Nvidia's Graphics processing units (GPU) Grimes2 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Business-level news which is not good for ITN because its based on speculation of long-term impacts. --Masem (t) 12:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a rather poor argument. What's the long term impact of the Turkish hotel fire? We post things that are in the news (the mainstream news, not just business news - I'll grant you that) and are noteworthy, no matter the topic. Thus we have posted business news in the past. Khuft (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time, WP is not a newspaper (that's what Wikinews is for), and at this stage we have no clue how DeepSeek will impact the world on a more long-term basis. I also do think that we post far too many local disasters like that fire and most of those would not survive a proper NOTNEWS/NEVENT challenge made some months after the event (this is a WP-wide problem), but at least it can be argued that the major loss of life in the dozens does account for some permanence to be ITN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs)
    To add, Nvidia and others have already rebounded [11], making this no longer impactful. If there was a long term effect of the stock, that might have been a story, but a short term bounce is definitely not ITN appropriate. — Masem (t) 16:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NVDA is up 1.82% from yesterday's 17% drop. That isnt a rebound. That was the largest single day decrease in a company's value in history (600 billion USD). nableezy - 16:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least with this blurb, "disrupts the market" is too vague and subjective. Even if this was notable enough to be posted the blurb would need something concrete that has happened. Rahcmander (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on current wording, neutral on alt2, still a bit too close to business news. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional weak support posting the market impacts if they continue or worsen, strong oppose mentioning DeepSeek in the blurb if so. I don't think this is going anywhere anyway. Departure– (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't qualify for DYK which has strict rules for entry and is still over-subscribed, running 9 fresh hooks every day. It does qualify for ITN because it's In the News while ITN badly needs new content as it runs less than one new blurb every other day and so is still reporting something that happened 12 days ago. So, it's ITN that needs nominations, not DYK. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson No, ITN doesn't "need new content". Despite the name appearing otherwise, we are WP:NOTNEWS. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect to him, it’s been shown multiple times that the community consensus on what ITN/C is and Andrew’s opinions on what it should be divert considerably. The Kip (contribs) 05:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because ITN doesn't run much new content then it is left running old content instead. The few blurbs that get through are run repeatedly day after day when they are no longer actually In the News. This is not a good look. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC
  • Support, business and computing technology and political news that is, well, In The News. But please none of the breathless hype language (for the love of God please do not put "disrupt" which is marketing buzzword crap, on the main page). Keep It Simple, omit needless words: "Chinese company DeepSeek releases its large language model, generating international reaction." The details are what the link to the article is there for. --Slowking Man (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt2 Disagree with the CRYSTAL oppose votes. It's making waves on everything from political discourse to the stock market to mass media headlines. How much more ITN could you get? If anything, the crystal ball reading here are the folks saying, "this won't be any different than any other AI software because x, y, or z"... sorry, but that is irrelevant. It's a major development that is being widely reported. FlipandFlopped ツ 06:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Editors seem to dislike the blurbs. What are different things based on which the blurb could be formed, taking into account the above discussion? -𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 09:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the blurb...

    Widespread technology sector selloffs occur following the release of the Deepseek model of artificial intelligence.

    No article exists as a target but one should be made. Deepseek's release prompting mass tech sector selloffs is the story here, not Deepseek itself. I personally hope the entire AI sector collapses from this, it's been nothing but bad news for ordinary people like myself. Departure– (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checkpoint Looking at this after a day, I see that it's still in the news with reports like this DW at the top of my feed. And it's still the top read article with 860,000 more readers yesterday. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nvidia stock dropping another 5% as I write this. Imcdc Contact 16:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And it's still the top read article with 860,000 more readers yesterday.
    Cool. Doesn't matter, though, as you've been told more than enough times. The Kip (contribs) 18:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
support altblurb3 it is certainly in the news worldwide.Sportsnut24 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

January 27

[edit]
January 27, 2025 (2025-01-27) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) M23 offensive (2022-present)

[edit]
Article: M23 offensive (2022–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In an ongoing offensive, the Rwandan-supported March 23 Movement captures Goma, the capital of North Kivu province in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Thanks to many editor's efforts (especially EdwinAlden.1995), this article has been updated with new information in the past couple of days, and I believe it now meets the WP:ONGOING criteria provided updates to the situation are continuously added. Please let me know if I'm missing something. Thanks, Staraction (talk | contribs) 07:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Support congo had also de-recognized rwanda and peacekeepers killd.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw an article that said a two-party summit between Rwanda (who is supporting M23) and DR Congo mediated by Kenya is planned "within the next 48 hours" so oppose until that does (or doesn't) happen, and then maybe support if it expands further in scope. Departure– (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per above. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb ArionStar (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb per the Battle of Goma (2025) Johnson524 19:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb, wait on ongoing per Battle of Goma Ion.want.uu (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't it be better to put the Kivu/Ituri Conflicts as a whole in ongoing? it would then allow us to include the other rebellions/insurgencies like the ADF conflict under one ongoing item Ion.want.uu (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support BilboBeggins (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, and, if the same level of activity continues, support ongoing after the blurb dies out. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Its a shame that we don't care about African wars as much as we do with European ones. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
friendly reminder that the Sudanese civil war (2023–present) is currently in ongoing. Ion.want.uu (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 26

[edit]
January 26, 2025 (2025-01-26) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

Sports

RD: Arto Salomaa

[edit]
Article: Arto Salomaa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.aka.fi/en/about-us/whats-new/press-releases/2025/arto-salomaa-academician-of-science-dies-at-90/
Credits:

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 mathematician and computer scientist 12:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.223.182 (talk)

(Ready) RD: Gaositwe Chiepe

[edit]
Article: Gaositwe Chiepe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.mmegi.bw/news/dr-chiepe-died-peacefully-at-her-home-family/news
Credits:

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: Botswana politician and diplomat 12:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.223.182 (talk)

(Ready) RD: Norbert (dog)

[edit]
Article: Norbert (dog) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://people.com/norbert-therapy-dog-dies-at-15-8781209
Credits:

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.

 12:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.223.182 (talk)

(Posted) RD: Kazuyoshi Akiyama

[edit]
Article: Kazuyoshi Akiyama (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Vancouver Sun
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: A Japanese conductor who conducted not only the Tokyo Symphony Orchestra for 50 years, but also others in Canada and the U.S. for a long time, parallel, taking Western pieces to Japan (Japanese premieres of Schoenberg and Janacek, among others) and Japanese pieces to the world. His article was just a list of posts. It could still become better but I'm out for the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed as stale) 2025 Australian Open

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Stale; Kivu conflict blurb from a day later is now the oldest blurb. The Kip (contribs) 15:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed image
Article: 2025 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Jannik Sinner (pictured) wins the men's singles and Madison Keys wins the women's singles at the Australian Open. (Post)
News source(s): USA Today, The Guardian
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
 Moraljaya67 (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As mentioned in the past, like many tennis articles before it, lacks any prose summary in the main article about the events themselves and very little prose in the singles' articles. It has only just tables and lists of the results from the finals. There are four redlinks of four events of the tournament. LiamKorda 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

(Posted) 2025 Belarusian presidential election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Belarusian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is the declared to be the winner of the Belarusian presidential election, securing a seventh term. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is reelected as President of Belarus, with credible opposition figures unable to participate.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: As the Putin re-election was similarly nominated and posted. ArionStar (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: External links in the Opinion polls section. Shouldn't those be references? Is Chatham House in there the Chatham House? – robertsky (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting for the obvious results. ArionStar (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the results to come in. I wonder who's going to win. Departure– (talk) Departure– (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Whether the election is a sham or not, it is still notable. Lukashenko is going to be the president for the next term and that's newsworthy. The point of ITN is to highlight quality articles about current events. The election is a current event and the article highlights the fact that it's a sham quite well, not sure how we feel about including that in the blurb? ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 15:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until they officially announce his victory. -insert valid name here- (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The results of general elections in all states on the List of sovereign states are ITN/R, no matter the legitimacy of their results. Keep in mind posting "reappointments" of the leaders of de jure totalitarian states are in ITN/R as well, so even if Lukashenko admitted he was a dictator, we would still post this. As for article quality, there are no unsourced sections, a fair amount of background, and discussion of this election's legitimacy (or lack thereof). I believe it's good enough to post. -insert valid name here- (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - WE should have neither posted the Belarussian or Russian elections. It was 100% guaranteed who would win, everyone knows that. This is not exciting, we dont post the North Korean elections either so whats the big deal with Belarus and Russia? More northerncentrism. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we literally posted the 2024 russian election… Ion.want.uu (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Best as I can tell, the last NK election in 2019 were never nominated, so that's not a good example point to raise. Also, while much of the rest of the world see this as a sham election, we had this discussion just last year that ITN shouldn't be the place to judge that, but the article space itself (see Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 110)) --Masem (t) 18:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand dismissing noms you don’t like by accusing them of northcentrism is a great way to eventually get yourself removed from the ITN/C board. The Kip (contribs) 14:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip even without the northerncentrism thing, we all knew who was going to win, this is nothing new. "Oh dictator remained in power again, who would have known??". Also these elections are more census data rather than actual elections. And we don't nominate US census for ITN. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SimpleSubCubicGraph: Do not mark everything as northcentrim etc, this will only decrease the value of the word, and make the case less effective where it is actually done. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor Ping Me🔔 06:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong support ITNR elections (particularly head of state) don't matter if you like the result or not.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really an election though, after you banned other parties from running? I don't think it actually meets the definition of the word "election". And thus it isn't ITNR. Nfitz (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per ITN/R. I advertised the problem with elections in authoritarian countries and even proposed changes in the wording on ITN/R some time ago, but they were disregarded because it’s not that we shouldn’t post unfair and non-free elections. So, please be consistent and swallow the pill.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Breaking news: dictator is still a dictator. In other news, the sun is expected to rise in the east tomorrow. qw3rty 01:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ITNR items shouldn't be rejected on value judgments, changes about/rejection of "sham" elections should be first sought in that space. As of now this is perfectly valid to post based on article quality. Gotitbro (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ITNR Ion.want.uu (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment guys we posted the 2024 Russian presidential election, which lets be real was just as rigged, but we argeed that we were going to post these things regardless of legitmacy. Check the archives for the discussion Ion.want.uu (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. It's well-attested that opposition parties were prevented from running, and that fact is definitely prominent in the news reporting about this election. It's not RGW to say what is actually being said in reliable sources, including in ITN headlines. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that he was declared winner satisfies WP:NPOV. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change The original blurb is neutral and better. ArionStar (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the current blurb is neutral and factual while acknowledging the election was non fair or free in a non-editorial way. ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 13:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last credible opposition candidate fled the country in 2020. This wording suggests there were credible opponents but he banned them shortly before the election. Best solution is to simply say he was declared the winner. Mellk (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1273527864"