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.

Muhammadu Buhari in 2015
Muhammadu Buhari

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.


July 19

[edit]
July 19, 2025 (2025-07-19) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

July 18

[edit]
July 18, 2025 (2025-07-18) (Friday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Rex White

[edit]
Article: Rex White (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NASCAR.com
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: Hall of Fame NASCAR driver. His death announced on July 18. 240F:7A:6253:1:34A5:94E0:F817:B3C2 (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Velu Prabhakaran

[edit]
Article: Velu Prabhakaran (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WION
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: Veteran Tamil filmmaker. 240F:7A:6253:1:5CEB:CE2:A024:A39 (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Missing citations (including in the "Personal life" section) and multiple failed verifications. The "Career" section is also very unbalanced, mostly focusing on a single film, with loaded wording such as he revealed that the film would expose the falsehood of kama in society and Prabakaran held an emotional appeal at a press conference. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:46, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

[edit]
July 17, 2025 (2025-07-17) (Thursday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Politics and elections

RD: Bill Neukom

[edit]
Article: Bill Neukom (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
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 San Francisco Giants owner. His death announced on July 17. 240F:7A:6253:1:5CEB:CE2:A024:A39 (talk) 07:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Phoebe Asiyo

[edit]
Article: Phoebe Asiyo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
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: Major female Kenyan politician. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:56, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Felix Baumgartner

[edit]
Article: Felix Baumgartner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
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.

 Thriley (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, sucks to see his name here. Support RD, although a citation needs added to the sentence detailing his death. EF5 18:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely relevant, horrible to see him go Rooves 13 (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the notice above, Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 23:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, article well cited with no orange tags. All over the news, shocking as well. We could also maybe consider a blurb? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I'd say it's ITN/blurb-worthy Trepang2 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Treaty

[edit]
Article: Kensington Treaty (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United Kingdom and Germany sign a bilateral cooperation treaty, the first of its kind since World War II. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A bilateral cooperation treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany is signed in London.
News source(s): BBC, DW, euronews, The Guardian, Reuters, The AP, etc.
Credits:

Nominator's comments: I personally think this is significant enough for ITN because it is relevant to both the UK, Germany, the EU, NATO, Ukraine, but also the US as the UK decides which one to favour relations with. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 17:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This follows the recent state visit of Macron in rebuilding ties between the UK and Europe's major powers and this seems diplomatically significant. The article does a reasonable job of detailing the terms. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, since when did we post bilateral treaties? This isn't nothing given Brexit but it's nowhere near significant enough for ITN. Imo we should only be posting these sorts of things between previously hostile countries, UK and Germany are already close allies. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose The "first bilateral cooperation treaty between the UK and Germany since World War II" bit is interesting trivia, but this doesn't seem to be an unusually significant bilateral treaty. The two countries will have increased cooperation in defense and increased freedom of movement, but still not as much freedom of movement as when the UK was an EU member. Maybe a major agreement between the UK and the whole of the EU would be worth posting, but I don't know that this agreement was exceptional. Bilateral treaties are fairly common and very few get posted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be wrong because I'm going off of talk page banners, but looks like we did not post the UK's bilateral deals with New Zealand, Serbia, Australia, Canada, Japan, or Vietnam, and it also looks like we did not post the UK joining the TPP. We did, however, post the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement which makes sense. These examples are all trade agreements so they're not exactly like what's being nominated, this one is more of a general friendship treaty, but broad friendship treaties also happen between smaller countries all the time and rarely ever get nominated, much less posted.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree because the implications of this treaty are far greater than other ones that you have listed as not reaching ITN. This is because the UK and Germany are second and third in the amount of money given to Ukraine (source: [3]) . A treaty that involves a much closer defence partnership and a plan to do once a ceasefire starts in Ukraine is very significant.
    Furthermore, the small boats crisis has been pretty much the defining issue of recent UK politics, with it now being polled as the most important issue to voters in UK politics (source: [4]). Thus, an agreement for Germany to help the UK crack down on it is very significant to UK politics, and possibly the rest of Europe.
    Thirdly, the press have described this treaty (in combination with Macron's visit to the UK) as a commitment to form an E3 (UK, France, Germany). This is significant to the entire world order as Trump moves away from the levels of US involvement in foreign politics seen over the past near-century. (source: [5] [6] [7] [8]). It would be WP:CRYSTALBALL of me to speculate on how this will play out, but it is nonetheless important.
    I hope this explains my reasoning quickly JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 19:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have amended the article to discuss the significance of the E3 but obviously I cannot explain to the same depth as here as what I have written above is basically just my OR. If you read through the article again now the significance should become clear; I have done the same for the trade deals you mention above and cannot see their significance in the same way. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 19:58, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other Stuff Exists. What we've done in the past has no bearing on whether something is the correct course of action today. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN has always valued precedent. That doesn't mean precedent is always right or that we should never break from it, but we have always had our decisions to post or not post something be informed by what we agreed to be ITN-worthy or non-ITN-worthy before. Other stuff exists is from an essay on deletion policy. OSE is of course often used outside of deletion discussions, but I don't think it makes sense to use here. Valuing precedent is one of the ways ITN combats systemic bias. If we've never posted a bilateral friendship treaty between two "minor countries", why is one between two "major countries" different? You can argue that this one is different, but you would need to explain why.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that ITN should do things its own way or have its own concept of "ITN-worthy" subject matter is exactly why there is currently no consensus for ITN to exist. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really "doing things its own way" to value precedent when WP:OSE is not even a policy to begin with. Again, it's an essay about what not to do at AfD, which in turn has a whole essay about it (WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL) which acknowledges that OSE, while sometimes applicable outside of AfD, is not always applicable. This is one of those areas where it's not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Precedent is called out specifically as an argument to avoid.

    "Arguments that deal with the appropriateness of topics in general but also ignore the specific story being discussed are also usually not supported by the community. Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type (such as elections, or sports, or disasters) do not often generate agreement from the community. This also holds true for arguments based on similar stories which have coincidentally appeared recently, such as multiple elections on the same day, etc. Please assess and comment on the merits of each story on its own accord, not in relation to other similar stories."

    Andrew🐉(talk) 20:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be applicable to arguments that focus exclusively on the "category" of the story while failing to make any comment on the story being nominated. I don't think that is the case here, and I don't think that block quote is intended to be read as avoid any and all use of past precedent, never mention that we did post x or didn't post y. If that's how it's intended to be read, there should be a discussion about adding a bulletpoint to WP:ITNDONT, because arguments bringing up what we did or didn't post before have always been one of the most common arguments at ITN/C and this is the first I've seen someone say that's an invalid rationale here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People can and do make all kinds of arguments at ITN. The point is that precedent does not seem to be stated as formal guidance for ITN and the WP:ITNATA item indicates that it is considered a weak argument. The fact that we didn't post some other deals is not a reason to reject all such deals. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable subject in the news, article is informative and of reasonable quality. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support yes. ArionStar (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. — EF5 20:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Vanilla Wizard. I feel treaties in general is too common for ITN. 83.185.34.240 (talk) 09:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The assertion that this out of the blue treaty is inherently significantly is not borne by any factual basis of the situation, we should not be CRYSTAL advertising for governments. Gotitbro (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose per Gotitbro and Vanilla Wizard (and strongly oppose the very clickbaity Original Blurb). In general I'd be in favour of posting more posts on international relations. But this treaty is not really that major (and was barely covered in German media, as far as I saw) - the main reason for its existence is Brexit. Why wasn't there any previous such bilateral treaty between Britain and Germany (a dubious claim, BTW, as there were several double-taxation treaties / conventions, the earliest signed in 1954)? Obviously because the relations between (West)Germany and Britain were handled via the multilateral treaties of the European Communities, and later the European Union. The reason that there is even a need for a bilateral treaty is Brexit. Khuft (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Europe (IE: The EU and UK) are sleep walking towards forming some sort of parallel defensive structure to NATO. Scuba 05:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, "only" a bilateral treaty but playing a role in the shift from transatlantic defense to a more Europe-centered alliance network. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:31, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bryan Braman

[edit]
Article: Bryan Braman (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: Needs quite a bit of work on his playing career before this is ready to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality article could be expanded and more citations should be added. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister of Ukraine

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Yulia Svyrydenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Verkhovna Rada appoints Yulia Svyrydenko (pictured) as Prime Minister of Ukraine, succeeding Denys Shmyhal. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not ITNR, as the PM of Ukraine does not hold primary political power (per ITNR: administer the executive of their respective state/government). President Zelenskyy is the main office holder for Ukraine. Natg 19 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The prime minister presides over the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which is the highest body of the executive branch of the Ukrainian government." The prime minister administers the executive of the Ukrainian government, so I don't know what the argument against this is. --Grnrchst (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support still a change in head of government. Scuba 18:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, target article is hardly more than a stub and is almost solely WP:PROSELINE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) 2025 Kut shopping mall fire

[edit]
Article: 2025 Kut shopping mall fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A fire at a shopping mall in Kut, Wasit Governorate, Iraq, kills at least 69 people. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

Nominator's comments: As we posted the Kočani nightclub fire and 2025 Kartalkaya hotel fire. ArionStar (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support on notability, oppose on quality. I'm working to improve the article. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, needs an aftermath section at least Kowal2701 (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Connie Francis

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Connie Francis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  The first woman to top the Hot 100, Connie Francis (pictured) dies at the age of 87. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American singer Connie Francis (pictured), the first woman to reach the top on the Billboard Hot 100, dies at the age of 87.
News source(s): People.com, Yahoo News UK
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 singer and actress known for "Who's Sorry Now?" and "Pretty Little Baby". ItsShandog (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main batch of 11 {{cn}} was made just one minute after a different edit. This indicates that the tag bombing was done in a mechanical way without even reading or digesting the text, let alone looking for sources if they were actually needed. Was a script used? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of those cns incorrect? I see no issue with tagging "citation needed" for statements that need references, whether by script or otherwise. Natg 19 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one was certainly incorrect, as attribution and sourcing is already provided within the text. As the others appear to have been placed mechanically and speedily without taking time to consider the specifics of each case, they contravene the best practice guidance:"Tag thoughtfully. Avoid "hit-and-run" or pointed tagging...". Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A mention that you added all those CN tags would, however, have been the transparent thing to do when you mentioned them. Now, it seems like you tried to actively torpedo the blurb nomination (with which I disagree, BTW). Khuft (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on her for not playing rounders. 83.216.129.196 (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, viral worldwide, specifically on TikTok. ArionStar (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, neutral on blurb: A lot of people only know her today because of "Pretty Little Baby" as it went viral, not sure about how much of an impact she created in the past that would make for a blurb. Tofusaurus (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has several photos but few of them are portraits. The lead photo seems best because it shows the subject in her prime. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

[edit]
July 16, 2025 (2025-07-16) (Wednesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Claus Peymann

[edit]
Article: Claus Peymann (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): taz (in German)
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: Legendary theatre director and intendant of the German-speaking theatre scene, could't believe that he had no article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Wayne Thomas (ice hockey)

[edit]
Article: Wayne Thomas (ice hockey) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NHL.com
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: Canadian ice hockey player and executive. 240F:7A:6253:1:6969:56F6:7AC:DF46 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I did not find any issues with the article when reading through it. 83.185.34.240 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excavation begins at Bon Secours

[edit]
Article: Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Excavation begins at the Bon Secours Mother and Baby Home site in Tuam, Ireland, where the remains of 796 infants and children are believed to be buried in a disused septic tank. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A two-year forensic operation begins to recover and identify the remains of 796 infants and children.
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This excavation marks a significant development in Ireland’s process of addressing historical institutional abuse. It is the first intervention under the Institutional Burials Act 2022 and involves international forensic collaboration. The event has received substantial media attention. ItsShandog (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Good nom, but let's hold it until the investigation is completed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the excavation is ongoing, the commencement itself is a landmark moment. It is the first operation under the Institutional Burials Act 2022, with international forensic involvement and survivor engagement. ITN has previously posted the start of major investigations or exhumations, especially when they mark a turning point in public accountability. This nomination reflects that precedent. ItsShandog (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If true, fair. Suggest linking to the Act in the blurb then. Will change my vote to Not Opposed This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2025/0714/1523330-tuam-excavation/ ItsShandog (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we can comfortably remove the "believed" from the blurb. Departure– (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until there is some sort of actual target article instead of the school itself. and even then I'd be shaky since this is effectively a cold-case. Scuba 05:43, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Unlike the aforementioned Canadian Indian school graves, we haven't got a solid evidence that a grave does exists. Therefore it's only worth posting when they did found something to confirm that. NotKringe (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "An investigation starts" doesn't sound like some kind of breaking news. The deaths and poor conditions were already understood and reported back in 2012. The story is stale and being recycled. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Just to clarify — this isn’t a new investigation per se, but rather the beginning of a state-led excavation and recovery process at the Tuam site. While the deaths and poor conditions were known as early as 2012, this marks the first time physical recovery of remains is being carried out under the direction of the Irish state, following recent legislation to allow it.
It’s a significant new phase in the response to the Tuam case — not a recycled story, but a tangible and widely reported development with humanitarian and legal importance.
Given that the excavation officially began this week, it qualifies as breaking news in the sense used for ITN — a timely, state-level action that has triggered substantial domestic and international media coverage. This type of significant, state-led action — especially involving historical injustices and human remains — has precedent at ITN, particularly when it marks a new phase in a long-running story. ItsShandog (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The story was posted originally in June 6 2014 and the story hasn't actually changed thus it's stale news. It's more about filling in the details on a past investigation, which is all nice and all, but it's old news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President of Suriname

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Jennifer Geerlings-Simons (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Jennifer Geerlings-Simons becomes the first female President of Suriname. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following the 2025 Surinamese general election, Jennifer Geerlings-Simons becomes the first female President of Suriname.
Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support As with other head of government change, though the President of Suriname page needs to be updated first and that I think the blurb should mention that she won an election. NotKringe (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's some unsourced material and I think the content on her political career should be expanded. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Dutch is good to translate. ArionStar (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionStar Do you plan to work on her article, then? _-_Alsor (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and searching more English sources… ArionStar (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While she administers the executive (Suriname is a presidential system), the ITN/R aspect would've been the election (either 2025 Surinamese general election or the indirect presidential election, neither of which was posted), not the inauguration. However, given the slow news cycle at ITN/R and the fact that we missed the election, support posting the inauguration on notability. Apparently, the results of the general election were actually posted, so oppose on notability.
On quality, Jennifer Geerlings-Simons still has a {{cn}} tag in the "Personal life" section, and President of Suriname is mostly unsourced. The blurb could mention the election, although it should be clarified that her election was indirect (by members of parliament), and not the same as the general election. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Barrie Robran

[edit]
Article: Barrie Robran (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 7NEWS
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.

 240F:7A:6253:1:558E:EB0F:375B:9 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality, most of the career is unsourced, and some peacock phrases in the lead make me do a double-take. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Matiullah Turab

[edit]
Article: Matiullah Turab (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Pajhwok
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on quality, well-sourced but quite short and talks very little about his poetry work. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

[edit]
July 15, 2025 (2025-07-15) (Tuesday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

  • A pick-up truck veers off a road in Pithoragarh, India, and plunges into a 300-meter gorge, killing eight people and injuring five others. (MSN)

International relations

Law and crime

(Posted) RD: Bradley John Murdoch

[edit]
Article: Bradley John Murdoch (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Canberra TimesThe Guardian
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: Good riddance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

[edit]
July 14, 2025 (2025-07-14) (Monday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

(Posted as RD) RD/blurb: Fauja Singh

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Fauja Singh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Fauja Singh (pictured), reputed to be the world's oldest marathon runner, is killed in a hit-and-run accident. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Tribune
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: couple of citations needed, then should be good to do Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support only seeing one CN tag, news articles did talk about his death, and otherwise his article looks decent. Scuba 22:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb The death is the story and it's getting international coverage. We've had the Taliban guy up for days now so a different picture is needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suriname election story would mean we could replace the picture with one of Jennifer Geerlings-Simons. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb The chance this man was 114 are extremely low (though there’s a very good chance he was a centenarian). That being said, quite notable and ran marathons at a quite advanced age. 71.203.235.127 (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb when world record holder Kelvin Kiptum dies in a road accident at the peak of his career, the death is the story. When an obscure person who claims to be very old dies, there is no story. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, oppose blurb - But there is no need to be rude about it. I've heard of this man and his achievements, but even if I hadn't, I wouldn't be responding 'who?' Not least because this is an encyclopedia, and I can read his biography here. A sad loss, but not a story which merits a blurb in its own right. (I'm also not here to indulge in arbitrary skepticism about the ages of supercentenarians.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "But there is no need to be rude about it." Welcome to ITN! 😁 Kurtis (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they were going to talk about my vote, they could've at least pinged me. ;) Seriously though, I'm asking "who" because I have zero idea who this guy was, not because him allegedly being the oldest marathon runner while he was alive isn't significant. People we blurb are usually widely-known, not people who claim to be the "oldest" in something. — EF5 22:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn’t expect to know everyone significant enough for a blurb, if people !voted with that reasoning we’d just end up with Anglo bias. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kowal2701, I opposed a blurb because he's Hardly significant enough for a blurb, not because I didn't know who he is (the Who part is just an expression). Y'all are looking way too hard into my single !vote. — EF5 15:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. A unique achievement, yes, but not a "top-of-the-field" one that would have a major impact on the discipline of long-distance running. Oppose RD due to many remaining {{cn}} tags. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb, Support RD quality is fine to post to RD now (though those cn tags in the awards need fixing) but I don't see how he was a major figure (simply being the oldest is not equal to being a major figure, and while dying from a road accident is tragic, that means of death itself is not getting massive amount of coverage. Masem (t) 16:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's cn tags that should be fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: David Kaff

[edit]
Article: David Kaff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
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: Needs expansion but sources are widely available. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose article, in the shape it is now, is rough. Scuba 22:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John MacArthur (American pastor)

[edit]
Article: John MacArthur (American pastor) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): KHTS Christianity Today The Christian Post
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: Highly influential pastor and Bible teacher.  RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose orange tagged. Scuba 22:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Andrea Gibson

[edit]
Article: Andrea Gibson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Denver Westword
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 poet and activist, Poet Laureate of Colorado. 240F:7A:6253:1:4D5:ACEF:BE57:41DA (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks good, no glaring issues and even the discography is cited. Scuba 22:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. Saroja Devi

[edit]
Article: B. Saroja Devi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): TOI [9] Deccanherald
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: Indian actress Spworld2 (talk) 4:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

July 13

[edit]
July 13, 2025 (2025-07-13) (Sunday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Sports

RD: Jim Clancy (baseball)

[edit]
Article: Jim Clancy (baseball) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/jim-clancy-death-toronto-blue-jays-pitcher-mlb-1.7584936
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: The prose is there, but poorly sourced. Help with referencing is needed. 205.189.58.93 (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Clashes between Bedouins and Druze in Syria

[edit]
Article: Southern Syria clashes (July 2025–present) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Clashes between Bedouins and Druze in Syria have left at least 89 people killed (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Clashes between Druze militias and the Syrian Armed Forces kill at least 200 people.
News source(s): [10] CNN
Credits:

 Wi1-ch (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality Worrying development with significant casualties, though the proposed blurb and article is kinda rough around the edges. NotKringe (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba: What was the reasoning though? Because if it was on quality then it can be improved. Of course notability can also shift as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2025 FIFA Club World Cup final

[edit]
Consensus against posting. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 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 FIFA Club World Cup (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, the FIFA Club World Cup concludes with Chelsea F.C. defeating Paris Saint-Germain FC in the final. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, Chelsea F.C. win the FIFA Club World Cup, defeating Paris Saint-Germain in final (man of the match Cole Palmer pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​ Chelsea F.C. defeat Paris Saint-Germain 3–0 to win the final of the FIFA Club World Cup.
News source(s): BBC
Credits:
 Heatrave (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Really? The game isn’t even over yet. EF5 20:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finished now; but write the blurb better next time. ArionStar (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I retain my oppose even after the match is over, mainly per all others below. WP:ITNSIGNIF is the biggest reason, however, this simply isn’t important enough to post. EF5 12:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It finally feels like this tournament has a credible purpose in football. To prove on the pitch what we basically already suspect is the case. That the European club sides are the best in the world, with not even South Americans able to touch them when it matters, in the money rounds, even in favourable conditions (climate, location, domestic schedule). But within European football, success is anything but guaranteed. Teams as seemingly unstoppable as PSG this season, and as rich in talent as Real Madrid, can be defeated by a decent manager. And even teams as mighty as Manchester City, can hit hard times so bad they can't even beat a team from Saudi Arabia when it matters. And last but not least, if a superstar player leaves a European side for pastures beyond UEFA, it's probably because they're longer a world beater. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: Chelsea became first club in history to win and will wear FIFA Club World Cup champions special badge on their shirt for the next four years.
QalasQalas (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A new tournament which has been widely ridiculed by fans and in the media, and which has zero credibility. There are dozens of football tournaments which are more prestigious than this mickey mouse rubbish. Wikipedia isn't just PR for Fifa and Infantino, with all their corruption. Effy Midwinter (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is organised by FIFA and is equivalent to the World Cup at the club level. This is not a PR puff piece. And next time, engage from a neutral point of view. You seem pained. You might be an Arsenal fan or worst Madrid fan so i understand the agony. But that's just by the way. Heatrave (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should Liam Delap have turned down becoming a club world champion with Chelsea to instead become a European Under-21 champion with England? The football world has shifted, and now even international tournaments with prestige are losing out to a so called Mickey Mouse affair. It's not the money, it's the glory, the profile, the impact it can have on your career. Fans of other clubs who dont even make the starting gate might not like it, but fans have never been in control of which tournaments matter and which don't. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If this is meant to be the club equivalent to the FIFA World Cup, then FIFA should create a valid qualification process instead of using some rankings with vague methodology that is superficially explained. After staring at 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualification#UEFA, it’s still unclear why clubs like Liverpool, RB Leipzig and Barcelona were omitted even though the table shows that they rank higher than clubs that were admitted, which leads to the conclusion that clubs were practically cherry-picked for this tournament. Maybe this has potential to become more competitive and credible in the future, but, as of now, it’s only an ‘invitational’ tournament.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The two finalists Chelsea and PSG both had to win the champions league to qualify. Same with Manchester City and Real Madrid. Mamelodi Sundowns qualified by winning the CAF.
    Yes not all the participating teams had to win the continental cups but 80% did over the period between 2021 and 2025. So the fact that a few teams got their on merit doesn't invalidate the entire tournament.
    Heatrave (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If true, why would FIFA cherry pick Chelsea but leave behind Liverpool? CFCFOUREVA (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the actual answer to Kiril Simeonovski's question is this: A restriction of two clubs per association will be applied, with an exception for champion clubs if more than two clubs from the same association win their confederation's top club competition. And because Man City and Chelsea were selected from the PL, Liverpool (and any other possible English squads) was excluded, in favor of lower ranked clubs from different leagues. Natg 19 (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Natg 19: I don't think it's true given that four Brazilian clubs entered the tournament. Is this explained in reliable sources so that it can end up in the article?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 4 Brazilian clubs is explained because each of those clubs won the Copa Liberatores in the past four years: 2025 FIFA Club World Cup qualification#CONMEBOL. This article from the FIFA website says something similar to the prose I quoted earlier: A cap of two clubs per country is applied to the access list with the exception in case more than two clubs from the same country win the confederation’s premier club competition over the four-year period. I must agree that this is an odd qualification process, but it does seem like it was not "cherry-picked" per se. Natg 19 (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Inter Miami CF entered the tournament so that Messi can play. Fair enough. Unless FIFA create a valid qualification process similar to the one for the FIFA World Cup, this tournament cannot be considered significant enough for ITN.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:02, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inter Miami qualified as the host nation's representative (the host always had a team in the CWC). This spot was awarded based on their winning USA's most recent season (the English Premier League table kind (as is traditional) not the FA Cup kind or Super Bowl kind God you soccer ppl have so many kinds of champions, Aperturas and Clausuras and Recopas and Supercopas and UEFA Cup Losers' Cups like Europa Leagues or Europa Cups and ones where one of the kinds of US champions plays the same kind of Mexican champion once a year and like 4 flavors of championships per continent just for un age-restricted males countries) where they had the most points (the 3 per win 1 per draw kind). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — FIFA is now treating this competition as the club equivalent of the international World Cup (with the 32-team format played every 4 years instead of the 7-team format every single year), practically considering it to be an entirely new competition now. Coupled with the attention it's been receiving, it would seem fair to include a blurb on ITN. Writing off the competition as "PR for FIFA" is unconstructive and overly dismissive. Aria1561 (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is nowhere near the calibre of the Champions League or the South American equivalent. Reliable sources have been presenting it as a mix of a bit of summer fun and an annoying distraction for the clubs rather than a serious competition.  — Amakuru (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reliable sources say that final was a bit of summer fun? They literally had a fight on the pitch, so upset were PSG at having been beaten. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe they don't explicitly say "summer fun", but lots of sources imply strongly that it's not a serious competition.[11][12][13][14] In fact, "fun" was a misnomer on my part because I don't think anyone apart from FIFA officials and maybe Donald Trump actually enjoyed the thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any sources from today though? Now that we can see the final was a sellout, and we can see how much the Chelsea players enjoyed beating PSG, how annoyed PSG were to be beaten, and what a fantastic display of top level football by the most elite players it really was. The game was high quality, the win was well deserved and has been widely praised by football analysts [15]. And since it seems to have finally seen the Chelsea manager Enzo Maresca being accepted as a master tactician and all round elite coach by his own fans, something that wasn't said after his supposedly more important defeat of Real Betis to win the third least important European tournament (the UEFA Conference League), and you can certainly say he enjoyed it, as well as all his players and staff. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And if anything, it's been this tournament that has firmly ended any talk of the South American clubs being all that, for another few years yet. They will be fuming that they all were found wanting when it mattered, despite having perfect conditions. A home fan vibe in the stadiums, weather conditions exactly like their own, a tournament at their peak seasonal fitness, and all the world watching. The only way South American reliable sources will be dismissimg this as a bit of summer fun now, is through extreme sour grapes. They cared more about the European clubs, and they all clearly cared this time around too. Supestar players like Thomas Muller, Luka Modric, they're gutted to have not done better for their final swansong. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 06:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How does that jive with Chelsea getting at least $116 million and $37.66 million for its farm teams $40 million for winning the final alone supposedly it won 111 million pounds of money in all? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per FIFA. See match highlights here.
Fabvill (Talk to me!) 09:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone seriously believe Cole Palmer (or his representatives) sees more sporting merit or cachet in having won the third ranked European club tournament beating a side nobody can even remember (Real Betis fwiw), or becoming a world champion by beating, comprehensively, the reigning European champions, PSG? He left Man City to reach these heights, rather than be a little used squad player in the world's best team (until they weren't). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFCFOUREVA (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose There's no prose describing the actual game. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose quality is not there- no prose on the final article, and the main article is absolute junk with no tournament prose, rather a "storylines" section. Also not convinced this meets WP:ITNSIGNIF, as it's not as important/ well covered/ attended as the WP:ITNR club football events like the Champions League and Copa Libertadores. The fact that they had to almost give tickets away and played in half empty stadia suggests that this competition isn't comparable to the Champions League. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But if you played all the Champions League games in the USA, you would almost certainly have to give away tickets and watch half empty stadia. But if the World Club Championship was played in Europe, I'd say every game would be a sellout, even games where an Arab team is playing an Oceanic team. You cannot judge the importance of this tournament based on where it was played. The next FCWC one might be in Morocco/Spain/Portugal, so what I said is not a theoretical. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All of that is speculation, the facts are that I do not believe this meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. Also, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion my commenting on everything that is against your opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I will simply note then that you didn't actually provide any proof that every single game of the Copa Libertadores or indeed the Champions League is a sell out, regardless of where it is played or who is playing. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And I will note that I did- and that you're an editor with 17 edits, all of which are on this thread. No reply is required and [{WP:BLUDGEON]] still applies to all your endless commenting here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Glorified FIFA-sanctioned friendly tournament, with opaque rules and a good measure of sportswashing thrown in. Chelsea winning the UEFA Conference League is more of a sporting achievement, with arguably a higher standard of opponent overall. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    80,000 screaming fans and a fight on the pitch because the standout favourite lost, badly, and the winner taking home enough prize money to buy any player in the world, and you seriously think that is what most soccer fans think of when they say "glorified friendly"? The only part of this tournament that was artificial in its glory, was the ridiculous player introductions, the ridiculous "let's get ready to rumble", the ridiculous half time show, and the ridiculous VIP guest of honour. But if you think that's what defines the glory of a tournament better than what happens on the pitch, prepare to be disgusted, because apparently all that's going to be repeated for the FIFA World Cup next year. But in 2029 it will hopefully not be present, but the teams will be trying just as hard to win that tournament as they did this time. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Funny you mention prize money, because this is exactly what it is about; money, solely money, as the clubs selected have been on merchandising and financial power rather than sporting merit, although somewhat convoluted to make it less obvious. The very things you mentioned as "ridiculous" are Americanisms that are not part of football at all usually. It's a Franken-tournament. There were 80 000 spectators but the vast majority weren't fans as understood in the context football culture. How many of them would have been there regardless of who was in the final? How many hold Chelsea or PSG season tickets? How many are even near from Paris or London? How many can even name a club like Fulham, one of Chelsea's closest geographical rivals, or name a PSG player from before they were taken over by a petro-state? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might be a bit behind the times, to say the least. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Whilst I am sure FIFA would like this to rival the Champions League and its equivalent, I think the actual reaction to the tournament shows that few people really care apart from the supporters of the actual teams. Most of the early stages of the tournament were hardly reported on at all, except when there was a shock result (Man City) or when there was something farcical (the Chelsea 2-hour lightning delay). I went to my local pub last night while the final was on, and they had the England v Wales women's football on instead! More relevantly, the main sports pages here in the UK, less than 24 hours later, are far more interested in the cricket and the women's football (indeed the only stories about the CWC above the fold of the BBC Sport website are one criticising the competition and one about the scuffle after the match). Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet it's been all over TalkSport, who have barely discussed even Wimbledon, let alone women's football or men's rugby. Its even edging out cricket, and that's with a match actually in progress right now. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. We get it, you think it was significant enough to post, but you don’t need to try to sway every other “oppose” vote. EF5 12:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I assumed this was a discussion where you were supposed to exhange views to come to a mutually agreed set of facts, or at the very least a majority opinion that can be respected even by those who disagreed. Like it or not, this was not a glorified set of friendlies or a summer of fun FIFA party that nobody else in football cares about, and that's never going to be true no matter how many people say it. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a big difference between trying to build consensus and bludgeoning. Responding to every oppose vote with "b-b-b-but" is not taken very nicely and will only lead to more opposes. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully people have more integrity than that. This should stand or fall on the facts and quality of argument, not the feels. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Terrible argument anyway. TalkSport follows the money from armchair fans, after all their owners Sky Sports are the creators of this big money football that's so far removed from communities and ordinary sport in favour of entertainment. Also BBC 5live have the rights to Wimbledon so they're hardly going to promote an event with live commentary available from their biggest direct competitor. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The BBC is legally obliged to report on anything that entertains, informs and educates, without bias. With that in mind, here's their seemingly pretty fair assessment of this tournament's success [16]. To sum up: the "majority" of games in the knockout rounds were "well attended', with very good reasons behind lower attendances in the group stage (timing, weather, pricing). The fans who did attend seemed to have a good time. Teams were largely motivated by the prize money but players also wanted to win. "Purely in football terms, the tournament could be considered a success." It was probably no different to so called better tournaments in that regard. Audience buy in was huge in Saudi Arabia and South America. Visitors to BBC Sport were half what the Champions League gets, but "those are still big figures compared to many lesser followed competitions and sports." CFCFOUREVA (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mamelodi Sundowns game had an attendance lower than seen in amateur football in many countries. Success can be measured in other ways than solely monetary. Yes, the big money flowed, corporate pockets filled to the brim, and there was lots of fireworks and merchandise on sale and plenty of popcorn sold, but it's been widely reported as a flop which football world widely ridiculed and shunned. European fans didn't even bother turning up, which is unusual given even very small teams have fanbases that happily travel hundreds of kilometres each week, even for friendlies, and as far as several thousands kilometres away sometimes if continental competitions take them there. The opening rounds of European cup qualifiers look better in comparison and most league seasons haven't started yet. "Huge in Saudi Arabia" doesn't mean anything, it's not a traditional footballing nation and has a league consisting of 3 state-owned teams with huge salaries but not much else and attendances compared to 4th tier of English football for example. It's another bubble like the one in China few years ago. Some things money can't buy and prestige in a football cup competition is one of them. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "it's been widely reported as a flop which football world widely ridiculed and shunned.". I just literally posted a BBC story that totally contradicts this. It was a controversial tournament, but it wasn't shunned and it hasn't flopped. Even the ridicule has largely stopped after the final presumably surprised a lot of people by being so good (in pure footballing terms). People aren't rolling around in fits of laughter that Chelsea are now the "World Champs of Football", not in England anyway. They are begrudgingly accepting that if they want the right to dispute that, they probably should have organised their own tournament (legally allowed after the Super Cup ruling). Because there can certainly be no doubt now that PSG are not the best team in the world simply by virtue of winning the most prestigious club tournament, the Champions League. I've heard excuses being made for PSG, but they read as just that, excuses. Chelsea by contrast are getting credit for doing what needed to be done to win this tournament - have a big squad, managing the conditions and having the right tactics to beat each opponent you are drawn against. Just like the FIFA World Cup, UEFA Champions League and Premier League. Whereas, as people seem to be figuring out now, a Premier League club can get to at least the semi final of UEFA's third ranked tournament, just by turning up. Four out of four in the new format. That's not tournament football, that's the big money TV vehicle you're complaining about. Reliable repeatable venues for UEFA and tbeir partners, especially the clubs who enter. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment CFCFOUREVA should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE as all of their 15 edits were made to illustrate a point through bludgeoning in this particular nomination. We get it that someone created a scrutiny-evading single-purpose account just to game the process.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d suggest bringing it to WP:ANI as the bludgeoning continues. EF5 14:22, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality and notability per above. General lack of prose, and despite FIFA's insistence this tournament doesn't seem to be as important as it's billed to be. The Kip (contribs) 16:20, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone above mentioned the BBC Sport website. It's worth noting that stories about the CWC are currently in the top of 3 of the main Sport home page. But probably more significantly, they comprise 6 of the 12 main stories on their Football page, including the top three. Here they are in order (top to bottom) (* denotes a CWC related story):
1. What has Club World Cup taught us before 2026 World Cup?*
2. Fifa hailing of Club World Cup 'a fiction' says player union*
3. Chelsea can win league or Champions League - Colwill*
4. Goals galore and hope for hosts - takeaways from Euro 2025 group stage
5. 'I thought Trump was going to exit stage - but he wanted to stay'*
6. Have England got lucky by finishing second?
7. How Premier League spending compares with 50 days of window left
8. Defender Tuanzebe sues former club Man Utd
9. PSG 'lost their heads' after final - Joao Pedro*
10. Palmer reacts to Trump joining Chelsea trophy lift.*
11. Defender Mosquera agrees terms with Arsenal
12. What comes next for Wales after Euro 2025?

That's a lot of interest for a supposedly less important tournament. And by their own admission (see above), they already know visitors to its CWC stories are 50% less than they'd usually get for the Champions League. But they seem to feel obliged to focus at least half their real estate on this event. Why? Well, its surely because the BBC has literally no other reason to focus on the CWC other than a belief it is of public interest, certainly to those looking up "Football". The BBC's legally mandated mission being to inform, educated and entertain. And you just know that they would be loathe to overshadow the women's game with Infantino's vanity project, if they could possibly help it. Apparently they can't. And it's not a matter of timing either, since England women literally played a Euro 2025 game at the same time the CWC was held. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This debate about whether this is a big tournament or a tournament with a big prize jackpot is currently moot - there's absolutely nothing written as a match summary, which is a bare essential for presenting any sports event as the pinnacle of Wikipedia's coverage of news events. I politely say to the user who is enthusiastic about getting this posted: I would be happy to re-consider my position once there is a match summary! Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing it be dismised by Wikipedia as not even a real football match, let alone an important final, rather dampens the enthusiasm to write a match summary for Wikipedia. Probably better to let people read the reports of websites that recognise what it was (and what it was not) in a fair and impartial way. Let Wikipedia be the stats guys (and gals?) that feed the AI bots for no apparent global benefit (because if the Internet knows anything, it's football stats). CFCFOUREVA (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This excellent match report [17] by ESPN (via Reuters) shows where Wikipedia is being biased in much of the above opposition. The only time it mentions the Premier League or UEFA Conference League is to make it clear that a mere 4th place finish in one and even a win in the other, doesn't add up to the kind of prestige that means you could or should be able to win this effectively brand new tournament. It also makes it clear that the unique chance to see a Brazilian team (Botafogo) successfully beat PSG in a game that matters, in the group stage of this tournament, is what other teams, like a Chelsea, can then use to exploit PSG's "slight weaknesses" to crush their dreams of winning this tournament. Try getting that at your local football summer camp or at your favourite team's pre-season friendlies. It of course literally can't happen at any UEFA competition or the actual World Cup. Which is the point. But hey, that group stage game was only watched by 53,699 people. You get bigger crowds at Premier League games. Well, five of them anyway. The other fifteen stadia would be too small, including the League's newest (Bramley Dock) and the stadium of all conquering (until they weren't) Manchester City. Most importantly of all, it contains absolutely no excuses for PSG. Not Infantino, not FIFA, nothing. They just lost to a better team in a genuinely hard fought game. And even if they go on to get their revenge in a supposedly more prestigious tournament, it won't be the same. Chelsea will still be World Champs. Until Real Madrid win it in Spain in 2029 infront of the King and 80,000 adoring capital city dwellers, perhaps (will that make it a more significant tournament in some people's eyes, I wonder?) CFCFOUREVA (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CFCFOUREVA This is your 19th comment in this chain, which consists of almost your entire contributing history to enwiki thus far (WP:SPA, anyone?). Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the thread, you won’t change the clear consensus by simply shouting louder than everyone else. The Kip (contribs) 22:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not shouting. Instead of trying to shut me up, how about you ask yourself whether all you have done here with your apparently unchallengeable opinions, is ensure Wikipedia remains wholly biased to the European perspective? This idea that football is only important if it is played at times and places and between teams that matter to Europeans. So says TNT Sports, for example [18], albeit thankfully at least not in their voice. That's not surprising, since there's money for TNT in pushing this absurd idea that even the third ranked UEFA tournament is more important than the only tournament that sees non-UEFA teams pitted against European sides in meaningful competitive football. The sad irony of all the opposition above is that now the CWC is over, the only time you're ever going to see such things for the next four years, really is in mickey mouse pre/post-season friendly tournaments organised by petrostates for the purposes of sportswashing and further enriching the already very rich by exploiting fans. So called "tournaments" with quite literally zero sporting merit, and the resulting complete lack of interest from those not being paid to promote such slop. CFCFOUREVA (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodness me. I just said there wasn't a match report on the Wikipedia article. The response: yet another wall of text arguing about notability. Just one percent of the effort put into arguing with me (literally over nothing) could have produced the match report I requested to change my mind. Please: a good argument is to refute the other's central point. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A money-grabbing sideshow that hasn't really got the world interested. Needs more WP:SUSTAINED before we can consider adding it to the list. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per C of E. Khuft (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No match summary. (Why were the yellow & red cards handed out? There was a fight on the pitch? Trump overstepped? The article is silent.) BLUDGEONing also leaves a bad taste. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - While it's evidently a prominent title in terms of the field of competitors, this hasn't yet reached the level of coverage and integration that I'd expect to see for a sporting title that we'd want to post alongside staples such as the FA Cup or the FIFA World Cup. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not significant in the football world, heck a way of showing significance would be who owns the streaming rights, its DAZN a (globally) minor streaming service. If the major local streaming services don't think the rights are worth it, that shows that viewership and interest isn't there. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree on lack of contextual significance, broadcast rights in this case is a poor argument. DAZN has oil money and will have easily outbid other services for the rights, likely to try and boost its reputation within football. We can’t judge the interest based on DAZN alone. Kingsif (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First on quality, article is not sufficient. Second, on notability. Ignoring the …debate… over whether it makes Chelsea the best ever or is just an Infantino money and ego scheme (which he has openly admitted), there are a lot of football tournaments that we do and do not post for various reasons, with prestige typically being a kind of tiebreaker. If we assume the arguments for and against the importance at a pure footballing level are equal, let’s go to our judgement of prestige. On this, as I see it: besides this new reinvention, you only hear about the Club World Cup in terms of it being one of the trophies completing Barcelona’s famed sextuple. Dare I say if it was the only trophy - or one of only two or three - they won that season, it wouldn’t be bothered to be included. I’m sure other clubs have won an iteration of it, but I couldn’t tell you who or when, because it is not sufficiently prestigious to be mentioned in RS alongside other titles for those clubs. There is a chance it will become more prestigious, but as of now, if arguments for the current iteration are tied, the overall event is not so prestigious to overcome that. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 15 July 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) RD/Blurb: Muhammadu Buhari

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Muhammadu Buhari (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former president of Nigeria Muhammadu Buhari (pictured) dies at the age of 82. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: On the ground reports indicate the death of former Nigerian president. We will have wait for official confirmation from international press. Heatrave (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His death is being confirmed by RS such as BBC, Associated Press and Reuters. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb. As the two-time leader for a total of ten years, of the sixth-most populated country in the world, I think this should be a fairly clearcut blurb on significance. Quality is probably close to being there, which is rare for an article of this nature... a few citations needed here and there.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurb - the only person this year I’ve seen at RD that I’ve actually recognized solely by name. EF5 19:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article has had an orange cleanup tag for months and seems to have structural problems. It seems quite bloated with over 50 sections and some of them seem to ramble. The article's lead, on the other hand, seems too short and doesn't adequately summarise the huge body. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability, weak oppose on quality for now. Former head of state of a major regional power with 230 million people. Article is alright, but has structural problems (as Andrew Davidson noted), some CN tags, and an orange tag on one of the sections. -insert valid name here- (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability, oppose on quality per above. Two-time leader of a major regional power, serving as both a dictator and a democratically-elected President - seems like a fairly obvious blurb. The Kip (contribs) 21:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb - a rare no brainer. Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Probably the most important modern leader of Nigeria, having been leader for 10 years as both a dictator and a president. --SpectralIon 23:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support well-known public figure and nigerian states man, rest in peace. QalasQalas (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user (and a few others) oppose all death blurbs, with the OLDMANDIES rationale, so this is not an isolated case or prejudice against "smaller" countries. Natg 19 (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb on notability - One of the most influential modern figures in one of the world's most populous countries.
Youraveragearmy (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Former president and notable/influential political leader in Africa. Article is on overall good quality if not for the controversy section but I remember years ago where there was a nom with the same issue and the solution was to remove the section entirely. Is that a good move here? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, given at one point he was considered a dictator. Some of those subsection may not be needed, but there are definitely controversies that should be kept on the bio page. Masem (t) 19:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb clearly notable subject. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb given his vast influence over Nigerian politics since the 1980s, and his various stints in power. Article looks comprehensive, and length is justified given the very prominent and varied role he played in Nigeria. Khuft (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb looks fine to me, clearly notable Hungry403 (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the marker ready tag. The orange on the controversies section is still there, blocking the posting as RD or blurb. Masem (t) 23:03, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: what would you have us do about that? The tag was added as a drive-by comment with no accompanying talk page discussion or detailed rationale as to why what's written there is inappropriate, other than that it is a "controversies" section. And Wikipedia:Criticism is an essay only, so there's certainly no hard rule against such sections existing at all. I'd suggest this is unactionable and it shuld be marked "Ready" again, the article is in pretty good shape.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an orange tag on that section as of early June if not earlier, so it's not like that tag was added because of his death. It needs to resolved. Most common is the try to integrate the material into other sections or decide how significant the material actual is for inclusion. From my reading there are major points here so the section can't be wiped away like it was no problem, but there could easily be trimming and moving of content. Masem (t) 23:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, it looks like it was added in late May [19], with the rationale of what needs to be fixed explained in that edit summary. So its definitely not appropriate to call it just a drive by tagging. Masem (t) 00:18, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And to add more, several of those controversies can be placed into other sections of the article, while some like the 33 suitcases one seems extremely minor as to not even need mention. Masem (t) 00:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, controversy section looks like it’s been resolved Kowal2701 (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Admins willing to post ITN: ArionStar (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New World Heritage Sites

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription#2025 (47th session) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 47th session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee adds 26 sites to the World Heritage List (Megaliths of Carnac, France, pictured), including the first sites in Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, Der Spiegel, ARD Tagesschau, France 24, The Hindu
Credits:

Nominator's comments: World Heritage Committee added 26 new sites to the World Heritage List over the past three days. The bolded article links to the segment of that details this years additions. While the article itself is a list, most of the nominated sites have detailed pages of their own, and we could change the featured site and picture on a daily basis. This year's crop included iconic sites such as Neuschwanstein and Knossos, as well as less well-known ones like the Xixia Tombs, Mount Mulange and the Bijagos Archipelago (the first site for Guinea-Bissau) Khuft (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice to have something other than wars or natural disasters ITN. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality the target article is a list that literally just lists the places- not enough to meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality due to complete lack of prose. The Kip (contribs) 19:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this is a somewhat different kind of proposal compared to what we usually post. However, I would argue that adding prose on the WHC committee meeting just for adding prose is not really that interesting for readers (and the rest of the page doesn't have prose summaries for past committee meetings either), nor is having a stand-alone page for it. These committee meetings are only of niche interest - adding fluff prose on them wouldn't really be encyclopaedic.They key is that the page references the various sites that were added to the World Heritage list, helping users to discover them on their own (and we could feature a different one every day). While WP:ITNQUALITY dislikes lists, it qualifies it with "usually" - and I would argue this is one of those unusual cases where it could be interesting for readers to go for a different approach than we usually do. Khuft (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on significance. Looking at the linked page, it seems like there are sites added every year, so there is nothing unusual or newsworthy about this. If any of the sites are of particular interest and particularly in the news for any reason, then that could be individually discussed, but I see no value in simply mentioning that 26 sites were added.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'd like to support this as it's encyclopedic in nature but I'm not seeing any news coverage and the nomination doesn't list any sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you're right, I should have added news sources. Done so now. Khuft (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think we've had this discussion before. New sites are added every year and this is as much story as it gets, in view of the updated article. Individual sites and country lists are of course another story, but also difficult to find a target for ITN. On the other hand, delisting WHS is an ITN-level story, as it happened with Liverpool and Elbe Valley. --Tone 07:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose since there isn't a target article, but I am sympathetic towards adding this. Scuba 22:28, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got really excited, but then I realized it was a really long bare list with hardly a word of prose. This might be the absolutely ideal ITN article, if it were of suitable quality. Some of the articles linked from the list are really great! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kota Srinivasa Rao

[edit]
Article: Kota Srinivasa Rao (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CNBC TV18
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: Veteran Telugu actor. 240F:7A:6253:1:C96A:E0B:731C:3B1F (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wimbledon 2025

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Wimbledon Championships (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Iga Świątek (pictured) and Jannik Sinner win the women's and men's singles respectively at the Wimbledon Championships. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In tennis, Iga Świątek (pictured) and Jannik Sinner win the women's and men's singles respectively at the Wimbledon Championships.
News source(s): NYT/Athletic, NPR
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: Figured we'd get the metaphorical ball rolling on this, with Swiatek already having won the women's title and the men's title being up for grabs tomorrow morning. The Kip (contribs) 01:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the point of preemptively nominating an ITNR is. Since ITNR are already presumed to be important enough to post, the sole criteria for discussion here is whether the article is updated and of suitable quality to be ready to be posted on the main page, which it is very obviously not because the event hasn’t even happened yet. RachelTensions (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment there needs to be some sort of discussion on this because these ITNR articles keep getting misssd because the articles dont warrant prose just to fit ITN. Its standardized there.Sportsnut24 (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If editors are just making tables of results without any significant prose, that's a failing of WP:NOT#STATS. If these articles at ITNR have been failing their ITNC nomination on a regular basis due to the poor quality of the article, that's reason to remove them. From a quick check of the articles while we posted 2015 Wimbledon Championships, the 2016 were not posted due to lack of prose, and has been that way since. Masem (t) 13:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for your other complaint, I figured such an experienced ITN contributor as yourself would know that we almost never add trivia items to blurbs, but perhaps my expectations were wrong. The Kip (contribs) 15:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Andrew was stating that the article itself doesn't cover those facets mentioned, not that the blurb should have those. Masem (t) 15:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. I still disagree with the flagcruft comment, however. The Kip (contribs) 16:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Lack of prose and needs fixing its WP:MOS.
Fabvill (Talk to me!) 12:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

[edit]
July 12, 2025 (2025-07-12) (Saturday)

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Disasters and accidents

  • Three people, including a baby, are killed and 20 other people are hospitalized in an apartment fire in Ankara, Turkey. (AP)

International relations

Law and crime

Sports

(Review needed) RD: Raymond Guiot

[edit]
Article: Raymond Guiot (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Flute almanac
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: French flutist who did it all, principal flute of the Paris Opera for decades, prolific jazz player, many recordings, influential teacher. The article was there but few refs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I moved this from 11 to 12 when the first obit appeared. I was travelling and saw just now that he slipped to the archive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Status for New Caledonia

[edit]
Article: New Caledonia (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Representatives from New Caledonia and the French Republic agree to establish a State of New Caledonia within France. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An agreement is announced for a future referendum on New Caledonian statehood while remaining a part of France.
News source(s): The GuardianLe Monde France Info
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Compromise agreement for new status for New Caledonia, after a fraught multi-decade process. Announcement was yesterday (Saturday 12. July) but accord will have to be submitted to French Parliament and referendum in New Caledonia. Still: it's in the news now. New Caledonia article has short paragraph that provides update. Khuft (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • In particular, just because this has been announced, this doesn't even guarantee it will happen- as it needs to pass French Parliament later this year- and doesn't even really explain what the State means. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Notable subject, reasonably high quality article, recently updated, and currently in the news. It would be great if the blurb could indicate what a "state" means in this context. When the new state is formed, that can be posted too. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As France uses "administrative regions" rather than states like the US, "state" here I think reasonably implies a top-level national state than a sub-national state. That said, we generally wait on events like these to the point where there is no question that the state will happen, and since there's at least two vote milestones to happen, this seems premature, unless we have stronger sourcing that calls this historic or extremely likely to happen. Masem (t) 17:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments about what we generally do are unhelpful, as is any other type of unspoken rule. "This is the way we've always done it" is how bad practices are enshrined when there's no better argument for them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:30, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's useful to defer to convention rather than having to spell it out each time, but of course people can challenge it. Although I agree with Masem that it's premature since it's not guaranteed/very likely, would look silly posting this and it not happening Kowal2701 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article explains that New Caledonia already "forms a sui generis collectivity of the French Republic, a legal status unique in overseas France, and is enshrined in a dedicated chapter of the French Constitution." It doesn't make it clear how the new État name would change this and my impression is that there would be little practical difference. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to France Info, which provides more details. New Caledonians would get their own nationality (in addition to French), could get a new flag, currency, anthem, and could seek recognition from other states. So it's not nothing. Khuft (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the currency, I don't see anything on that list that they couldn't already do. And nationality is generally organic - lots of different nations within Canada for example. What's the timeframe on the currency? I'm surprised they want to abandon the Euro. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They currently use the CFP franc, not the Euro. I presume they could decide to introduce an own currency then. The change is actually more substantive than it appears - they would also gain autonomy on defense (which is a big one!), inner security (i.e. without French interference), and justice. Agree that some of the other ones are more cosmetic, though the flag one has been a bone of contention for some time (the French one is co-official with the New Caledonian one, currently; presumably they would keep only the NC one). All in all, it sounds to me to be a status a bit similar to the one of the Cook Islands - quasi independent, but not fully. Khuft (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A major change is New Caledonia's control over its foreign affairs. Al Jazeera: "Under the agreement, New Caledonia would immediately control its foreign policy, ... potentially paving the way to becoming a member state of the United Nations." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This story isn't finished yet, so renominate once it actually becomes a state. Departure– (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created an altblurb to remedy my earlier concerns ("An agreement is announced for a future referendum on New Caledonian statehood while remaining a part of France.") with a target to the Bougival Accord article, but will go with a Weak Oppose. This development still requires approval from the fourth referendum within a decade. While this deal is historic for decolonization, we should wait for the outcome of the vote (planned for next year, if it happens) and a follow-up blurb on eventual statehood (if it happens). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is a substantial political development in a decades-long conflict/dispute. The outcome is reasonably unique (best not to get fixated on the terminology, which will likely be self-defining). Waiting for complete independence is a ridiculously high bar. The agreement itself is very newsworthy in its own right, it is something that happened. That there will likely be future developments does not mean the current events are not worth noting. CMD (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Wait until the actual referendum happens - this isn't a done deal like it's being presented as, merely a preliminary agreement still subject to approval by both the French parliament and the people of New Caledonia. The Kip (contribs) 16:23, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until it goes into effect. Scuba 22:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ready) RD: Maulana Khan Zeb

[edit]
Article: Maulana Khan Zeb (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): DAWN
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article looks good, other than the confusing literary contribution titles. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:03, 12 July 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=1301403536"