Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
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.

James Watson in 2010/11
James Watson

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.

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.

November 11

[edit]

RD/Blurb: Sally Kirkland

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Sally Kirkland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American actress Sally Kirkland dies at 84. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Oscar-nominated American actress Sally Kirkland dies at 84.
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Not ready due to missing citations. 2600 etc (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snow close on the blurb issue We can't just be blurbing anyone, even Oscar winners. Let's exclude someone from blurb consideration if that person does not have a "legacy" section. Bremps... 16:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to close this? I agree it's not notable enough for a blurb but let's still have this up to discuss having it under RDs. TheFellaVB (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The discussion has only been open for a couple of hours and munging the nomination makes it confusing so I have reverted this improper interference. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs work I'm not familiar with this actress but she seems to be another veteran that our readership will be interested in. The gender imbalance in our blurbs this year has worsened as the tally is now 20 men to just 2 women. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb: most of the news obits I've seen don't really say much about her legacy or impact in the entertainment industry. The only notable thing in THR's obit is that she was "one of" the first actresses to appear nude in a stage play. They basically glance over her Oscar-nomination, barely mentioning why her performance was nominated. I went to the NYTimes website to see what they had to say about her. I couldn't find an obit, but I did read a very interesting article about Bugles Across America.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 18:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose blurb OLDWOMANDIES This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) BBC redux

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
WP:SNOW close. This was already turned down heavily on both notability and lack of an article just a few days ago, not just lack of an article. The Kip (contribs) 14:33, 11 November 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 BBC editorial bias controversy (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The BBC's Director-General Tim Davie (pictured) resigns over allegations of bias, while its chair, Samir Shah, makes a statement to parliament. (Post)
News source(s): UK front pages, Bloomberg, Reuters, NYT, Al Jazeera, AFR, NZ Herald, South China Morning Post
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Yesterday, the main complaint was that there wasn't an article about the matter but now there is. It was all over the front pages in the UK and there is continuing coverage across the world as there are further developments with many describing this as an existential crisis for the BBC. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, trumped-up bullshit. Abductive (reasoning) 08:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Although there are headlines about resignations and apologies and suchlike, that's really just a news-ticker type of story and not something that itself rises to the level of WP:ITNSIGNIF. There are long-term questions about how the BBC operates in the modern world, where political division permeates deeply, and articles such as [1] present this saga in a very different way from the narrative in the Daily Telegraph. But those are long-term questions and this week's events are only one symptom of that long-running saga, not a major transformative development in themselves.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Procedural snow close. There was extensive opposition for reasons clearly beyond no article (including precedential) by multiple editors for this to be re-opened. Gotitbro (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We just did this. There's an article now, but it reads like a hatchet job on the BBC and needs fixing quite badly. For example there's a sentence Additionally, the BBC was criticised for its coverage of extremist contributors, particularly on BBC Arabic, with concerns raised about biased coverage in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict. which is sourced to the Telegraph ... who were the ones doing the criticising. Please attribute stuff like this, it doesn't reflect well as regards NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's effectively a political hit job to keep conservatives happy. They resigned because of an edit in a show 4 years ago. It has been in the news, I can agree on that. But it's all just a political hit job, rather than anything meaningful.Basetornado (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Tim Davie is a conservative appointment and so the current socialist government is content to see him go so that they can influence the choice of successor. It appears that he's a scapegoat for a bundle of issues in which the BBC's centrist ethos naturally gets attacked by extremists of all sorts. Its main problem seems to be that the management is weak in handling egotistical "talent" and so tends to be accident-prone. Anyway, whatever the details, you fail to explain why we shouldn't report them, given the level of widespread coverage. If it's a hit job, why isn't that something we should report and explain? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the reasons for the removal of the DG are that convoluted, all the more
evidence the initial rationale further looses significance. I simply don't see we or the media would even have been discussing this "scandal" if it didn't involve WP:NTRUMP stuff. Gotitbro (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of nothing, but did you just describe this government as "socialist", Andrew? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised about anything these days, but ... er ... really? Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and snow close Borrowing the words of Black Kite from the last nomination: The programme in question wasn't actually produced by the BBC - the scandal is that they didn't fact-check it. Despite the resignations, this doesn't rise to the level of ITN. I also do not see a consensus for this to be posted forming.~2025-32416-84 (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Opposition to the last nom and this one are either 1) this isn’t significant or 2) this is a bone being thrown to conservatives to keep them happy. The former is clearly false, given the growing amount of coverage this is getting. The latter is POV/OR and entirely without merit. Dr Fell (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A news story may grab headlines for days but in terms of WP and long-term significance, it may just be a burst of coverage. Scandals like this are very much stories that dont make sense for ITN to cover unless we are talking court resolution or if they occur in the govt and lead to the change of leadership. Masem (t) 13:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Tatsuya Nakadai

[edit]
Article: Tatsuya Nakadai (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Japan News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese actor. ~2025-32647-66 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed, person alive) RD/Blurb: Dharmendra

[edit]
Closing, appears to still be alive. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:16, 11 November 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: Dharmendra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Indian actor and politician Dharmendra (pictured) dies at the age of 89 (Post)
News source(s): Zee News
Credits:

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Nominator's comments: National Film Award-winning Indian actor known for Sholay and Hukumat. Rushtheeditor (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose RD on quality some unsourced sections, and its really weird that the Health Issues section is that high up in addition to the later Illness section. There's some general improvements that are needed overall. Oppose blurb as while the legacy section is there, its not really doing the job to establish why he was a major figure in Indian film and/or politics, and that absolutely needs strengthing to justify this. Masem (t) 05:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw the nomination. Rushtheeditor (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rushtheeditor: If you wish to withdraw only the blurb you can simply remove that paramater from the template. I think this can still continue as an RD nom. Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is currently calling his death a hoax and is in present tense. Unless the media coverage changes, this probably can't continue as a RD nom by virtue of him being alive. 1brianm7 (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Irfan Siddiqui

[edit]
Article: Irfan Siddiqui (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The News
Credits:

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

 Ainty Painty (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready, writings could use more references, other than that I did not spot any glaring issues. ~2025-32416-84 (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Arfa Sayeda Zehra

[edit]
Article: Arfa Sayeda Zehra (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SAMAA TV
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.

 Ainty Painty (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

[edit]

RD: Herzl Bodinger

[edit]
Article: Herzl Bodinger (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ynet, Jerusalem 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: Former commander of the Israeli Air Force. Chomik! (talk?) 00:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Booker Prize

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Flesh (Szalay novel) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The novel Flesh by Hungarian-British author David Szalay (pictured) is awarded the Booker Prize. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Author David Szalay is awarded the Booker Prize for his novel Flesh.
News source(s): New York Times, The Guardian, BBC
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: One of the most prestigious literary awards in the world. Also, this is a significant event in the arts. Golan1911 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC) Golan1911[reply]

Support per nom. 2600 etc (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support alt blurb. The article isn't the greatest but does meet our minimum standards. This is ITNR and I don't see a good reason not to post it. Incidentally, we don't include years in blurbs, so I've piped those out above. Modest Genius talk 16:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Delhi car explosion

[edit]
Article: 2025 Delhi car explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A car explosion in Delhi kills at least 13 people. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

 Thriley (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, but support when finished. This is way to early and the perp is still unknown. JaxsonR (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality Poorly written in areas, unsourced in others. Additionally the background section makes it appear that the discovery of explosives earlier in the day is linked. It may well be, but unless im missing something there is no link found yet.Basetornado (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cleaned up a lot. Will likely need more time to get further information before it's posted. Currently most reputable sources are reporting the cause is unknown, while Indian sources are jumping to it being a terror attack and claiming links etc from unnamed sources. The names thrown about as responsible are stereotypically muslim names, and it wouldn't be the first time an Indian media source jumps on that and spreads misinformation. Happy for it to be posted etc, when more info comes out, but want to be careful with such a potentially touchy subject. Basetornado (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources labelling it a terrorist attack outright but officially it is being investigated as such and reports link it to investigations prior in the day and week and progress on it, pretty standard media procedure. Local RS providing reportage and analysis from police investigations is not what should be labelled jumping the gun or misinfo ([2]). Though yes, official confirmation should be affirmed to not give any of this undue prominence. But highly unlikely that this is a mere mishap or not related to investigations on the same day hours earlier. Gotitbro (talk) 07:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a lot of jumping the gun and misinformation. A lot has been cleaned up. Yes it is unlikely, but when reputable sources are explicitly saying that no cause has been reported yet etc. Calling it a terror attack etc is jumping the gun. Indian media has a bad history with reporting crimes linked to muslims. I feel it's fair to be more cautious with local sources based on that history. Basetornado (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat no RS explicitly lists this as a terrorist attack even now, merely reporting on police procedure is not it. We do not label/castigate the entirety of any domestic media as unreliable, though I generally avoid/peg [as does enwiki generally] broadcast below print media. If you have identified some deliberate misinfo please take it to WP:RSN, but from what I have seen this is general fare an incident like this anywhere elsewhere and not a trace of misinformation - which is a very specific term for false info. The Hindu and Indian Express are explicitly labelled as RS at WP:RSPP (among other print sources) and have reported the same, if by "reputable sources" you only mean international wire agencies of course with limited boots on the ground they would circumscribe initial reporting to official press releases but then again RS has never been limited to these (though these news agencies also detail the terrorism investigation). Sure we can be cautious for any incident like this (the reason {{current event}} exists) but that isn't reason enough to call reportage misinfo without an evidentiary trace of it. Gotitbro (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was being called a terror attack in Indian media broadly. That was the point. The article was also treating it as a terror attack, before reliable sources about it were known. That was the jumping and potential for misinfo. What i'm saying is that Indian media on topics very much like this, can jump to conclusions etc. Which means on topics like this, Indian media should be treated more cautiously than normally. It doesn't mean they can't be believed. Just making sure we're more careful than usual. That's all. Basetornado (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't at anytime I checked those sources and isn't now, so I dispute that. The wikivoiced edits came from a single editor here and isn't a flaw of the sources. Ultimately, {{current}} already takes care of the initial rushed reporting in these incidents. I wouldn't treat this any different (as for cautiousness and recency) from how I would treat incidents like the Kirk assassination in the US or the recent mass stabbings in the UK (despite considering the media bias in those incidents as well). Gotitbro (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some of that editors work, which was jumping the gun and potentially misinformation. The sources I had been looking at online, quite a few of the Indian sources were calling it a terror attack. While the international sources and some Indian sources as well were making it clear that it hadn't been described as that at that point, even if that was a possibility. I also am naturally suspicious of smaller Indian sources, because of the history of Indian media with stories like this. Hence why I was calling for caution and to potentially wait, so we aren't sending it to the front page with information that is quickly shown to be false. That's all I was doing. Let this be the end of it. Basetornado (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Likely a terror attack (per the article and news reports). Article quality looks fine enough for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is still filled with unsourced information, guesses and misinformation. One example is the lead said it was caused by ammonium nitrate, but none of the 6 sources used mention that, and instead say the cause is unknown. I changed that and am cleaning it up. But, it's not ready as is. Basetornado (talk) 05:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nitrate bit wasn't there when I had a look at it nor were the preliminary reports being presented as wiki[voiced] fact (though these do indicate it being used [3]), good to see it has been reverted. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The unsourced claim about ammonium nitrate was added by an IP editor 22 minutes before you commented here. This isn't a legitimate reason to claim the article is of overall low quality, since highly viewed articles always attract a churn of low-quality edits that we simply revert back to stable, sourced text. This comment should be struck. Einsof (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks a lot better quality wise now. – LuniZunie ツ(talk) 14:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This page received more than 7500 page views in the last day, and therefore squarely falls within the purpose of ITN, "to help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." The article is of decent quality. Litigating this submission to death would be a real shame, although ITNC seems to love to do that. Einsof (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's only one if the purposes of ITN, we have to balance all four. We do not use pageviews to determine what gets posted. Note that this is not in opposition to post this blurb (it otherwise seems to be appropriate) , just that this is not an appropriate support cite. Masem (t) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I actually cited two of the four prongs (the second being quality), and the article actually passes all four (the article is dynamically updated, and many readers outside India might not be aware of this event). Einsof (talk) 15:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to the high number of page views, a notable accident, and article is of the right quality. 2600 etc (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Fung-wong

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Typhoon Fung-wong (2025) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Fung-wong hits the Philippines, killing at least 10 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Typhoon Fung-wong hits the Philippines, leaving over a million people displaced.
News source(s): BBC AP Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Strong typhoon hitting the Philippines, death toll likely to rise in the coming hours and days. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for more info about impact, death toll, and damage. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait:Minimal impact in Philippines, possible greater impact in Taiwan later in the week. But if the impact it currently has is the most it has etc, I would oppose. Basetornado (talk) 07:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for full impact. ~2025-32138-10 (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 9

[edit]

RD: Jeff Tobolski

[edit]
Article: Jeff Tobolski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American politician who serving as the mayor of McCook, Illinois and member of the Cook County Board of Commissioners. ~2025-32407-40 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lenny Wilkens

[edit]
Article: Lenny Wilkens (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Seattle Times, KOMO News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Basketball Hall of Fame player and coach. Article could be more detailed but is relatively high quality. Goosedukeee (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Article is in an unfortunate state. Unsourced stats and awards sections along with several missing details (primarily information on his playing career with the Cavs and Trail Blazers and as a player coach). ----The Robot Parade 14:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) BBC bias scandal

[edit]
Consensus will not develop to post. (Unfortunately—it's a dead good nomination, very interesting indeed.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:20, 10 November 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
Articles: Tim Davie (talk · history · tag) and Deborah Turness (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Director General of the BBC (pictured) and its head of news resign over accusations of bias. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The BBC's director-general (pictured) and News CEO resign amid allegations of bias by the broadcaster.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, CNN, France24, NYT, Times of India,
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I've not been following this story and so the bulletin announcing these high-profile resignations came as a quite a shock just now. The implication seems to be that the BBC accepts that it has been spinning stories in a biased way and that seems quite a big deal, given its long-standing reputation for reliability. As we rely on such sources, it seems important that we understand the details. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While not routine business news, its still mundane business news, just as we don't post high level promotions or the like (eg Bari Weiss being elevated to the head of CBS News was a huge story in the papers, but obviously not somethign we cover). That we don't even have an article on this "scandal" is telling that this is not really that significant. (I know some editors are trying to argue the BBC isn't reliable now because of this but that's not applicable to ITN at all) Masem (t) 00:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The relevance of this story to our own reliable sources policy should have no bearing on whether or not we post it to ITN. Once again, Andrew, the internal workings of Wikipedia are not a suitable source when it comes to what we put on ITN. And I notice that the claims of bias are made in a memo published by the Daily Telegraph, which is considered a biased source by a significant number of WP editors on at least one of the topics that memo covers. Much more wide-ranging criticism of the BBC, especially relating to political neutrality, were made in the recent "Our BBC Our Future" public opinion research, but Davie shrugged those off despite having been in charge when the BBC commissioned the research. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just Wikipedia that relies upon the BBC for reliable reporting. The matter is being reported globally per the sample sources that I listed in the nomination. It's in the news and that's what matters most. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support significant resignation widely covered in multiple news outlets, though I agree that WP's use of BBC sources is irrelevant here and frankly way too convoluted of an issue to be considered constructively as a reason for inclusion. I think this story qualifies despite that anyway. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per SnowyRiver. 2600 etc (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resignations at a news broadcaster are notable, but without a major scandal are too mundane for ITN, which I don't think some misleading editing in a documentary is. To me the resignations also doesn't seem like any admission of guilt, but rather the BBC trying to do damage control by looking like they're taking action on this. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeResignations appear to be politically motivated by the BBC, rather than anything major. I have seen coverage of this. But it looks more like a review by people with an axe to grind to keep conservatives happy. Rather than anything more concrete.Can understand the nom. But not for me.Basetornado (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this goes into the territory of WP:BLP given that the bolded items are biographies. BBC is accused of being biased and the leaders resigned as such as a way of leadership responsibility. But nowhere it is stated that they, the persons, admit to be the drivers of the biasness personally and this blurb is insinuating as such. I would likely support if there is a separate article focusing on the scandal and it having a more lasting impact such as an overhaul of the newsroom in one way or another. – robertsky (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The BBC being one of the world's premiere institutions isn't enough for a scandal of limited reach being ITN-worthy. It's just a couple of resignations; if it was a wider, more impactful event, where is the actual article to link about the scandal? I might feel differently were this "scandal" actually something substantial enough to have its own article; otherwise this just feels like yet another Trump-related outrage item. Nottheking (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update There are expected to be further developments today as the BBC Chairman, who heads its board of governors, will be making a statement to Parliament's Culture Committee which has been demanding an explanation of the controversial Panorama programme. The resignations seem to be part of a package of such responses by the BBC. The Culture minister, Lisa Nandy, is involved too but doesn't seem to be pushing a particular line as the BBC is supposed to be self-governing. Again, there are interesting parallels with Wikipedia, the WMF and its Board of Trustees, in which individual editors and projects do their own thing and the nominal leadership tries vainly to stay on top of it all. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:05, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is basically a corporate scandal in a country with recent record of declining press freedom and worsened quality of journalist content as noted by Reporters Without Borders in their reports. As for the implications, we can contribute by revising its status on WP:RSPS.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The programme in question wasn't actually produced by the BBC - the scandal is that they didn't fact-check it. Despite the resignations, this doesn't rise to the level of ITN. This is interesting, though. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Panorama is produced by BBC Factual according to its article, I was not able find any source from searching that this specific programme was produced externally, could you please show me where you read this? I think it's likely a useful addition to the relevant sections about the scandal. ~2025-32356-26 (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The credits for the particular Panorama programme are here. The production company was October Films and the producer/director was Matthew Hill who seems a veteran of all sorts of genres. I don't get the impression that there was a special conspiracy but such programmes are usually presented to seem as dramatic and sensational as possible and so will selectively present the evidence accordingly. What they want is ratings and attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! ~2025-32450-00 (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Black Kite and Kiril. The remarkable thing would be to find a media that was truly impartial. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose – A double-resignation is a fine opportunity for a blurb feature, but it's not quite as good as a death (when the articles would reach their conclusion). If we had some really impressive writing on what is going on here, I would've supported, but just a paragraph or two is quite weak. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Robertsky in regards to WP:BLP. The main subject of the story/blurb is (should be?) the scandal itself (which currently is just sections on the BBC controversies and the Panorama articles), not the people resigning as fallout because of it.
    Edit: Black Kite also brought up a good point in regarding the scandal itself that I also feel severely limits the notability of the scandal itself. ~2025-32450-00 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Davie has been on thin ice for over a year, for a variety of reasons that are unrelated to the Panorama programme. The latest memo claiming bias is simply the final straw, not a resigning matter in itself. More importantly, the leadership of a national broadcaster is rather parochial news and Davie's 5-yr term before resigning is pretty typical. The nominated articles are not particularly good either. Modest Genius talk 13:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I find it bizarre that the bias accusations against the BBC are for being anti-Trump. The much bigger problem is surely that it has been very favourable to the right-wing Reform party... Modest Genius talk 13:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's actually the elephant in the room, as the Guardian article I linked above seems to be getting at... Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NTRUMP This entire scandal is technically notable because of the admitted doctoring of trump's speech before January 6th, 2021 which is who this scandal is about anyways shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Paul Tagliabue

[edit]
Article: Paul Tagliabue (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former NFL commissioner. 84. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Laws

[edit]
Article: John Laws (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC, 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: Australian radio broadcaster. Subject of one of my favourite TISM lyrics. Basetornado (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support significantly notable death. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is not only to be "significant"... it needs to be in shape. It clearly isn't. CoryGlee 00:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Gaza peace plan

[edit]
No support for this. Schwede66 02:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article: Gaza peace plan (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
News source(s): [4], [5]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: I am bringing up this issue once again for discussion (after it was opened on October 20 and closed on October 26) because the event continues to make headlines worldwide. The peace plan is ongoing, and the article not only discusses the plan but also its actual implementation. Almost every day there are news updates and various developments surrounding the matter. Additionally, there are events reported in this article that are not reported with the same level of detail in the timeline or in the article about the war. Therefore, I believe this article is deserving and important to remain in the ongoing section on ITN. Rafi Chazon (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the peace plan is in the news, events that impact the peace plan are not occurring daily nor is the article being updated with that type of daily events, which makes it ineligible for the quality expected for ongoing. Ongoing is not just meant for news that is ongoing (ITN is not a news ticker), but for articles where there are daily events affecting it and being updated on WP. Anything affecting the peace plan is being well documented at the timeline article that is already present, and the peace plan is linked from both of these. Masem (t) 13:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem I would appreciate it if you could explain what 'events that impact the peace plan are not occurring daily' means and why, for example, Kazakhstan's joining the Abraham Accords as a result of this peace plan is not considered. Additionally, if the criterion you provided for something to be considered 'ongoing' is such, then the genocide wouldn't meet it either (as you suggested previously). However, as long as the article on genocide is included, I don't understand why the article on the peace plan wouldn't be included alongside it.Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the sections Implementations and "Violations and deviations" for any significant updates, which seem to be the primary sections where events post-implementation of the peace plan are discussed. Reactions and small diplomatic aspects are not significant events here. Masem (t) 16:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Masem. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, also per Masem. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I remember that ongoing wars (like Sudan's at one moment) or ongoing disasters (2019 Samoa measles outbreak) which had significant developments each day but fewer contributors to their expansion, were pulled because of that lack of updating. Gaza draws a lot of attention, but a lethargic article without daily progress cannot pass the threshold, even more so when truly ongoing events (cited above) did not per other reasons. CoryGlee 16:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If the peace plan is actually in implementation we need not feature it (as the whole thing can be removed), if it isn't hardly justifiable to feature it. And I think the latter is rightly applied here. Gotitbro (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreement seems to exist primarily on paper, doesn't have frequent significant developments.–DMartin 19:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. The lead stops summarising the topic after 10 October, other than violations of the ceasefire which is summarised into all of 7 words. There is nothing new here. CNC (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Concrete updates as the peace plan progresses should be covered in the timeline. Consistent application of the arguments made for not adding Gaza peace plan to Ongoing requires that Gaza "genocide" be removed. Updates there are now legal and academic commentary, not rolling events. Dr Fell (talk) 00:41, 10 November 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.

November 8

[edit]

RD: Quentin Willson

[edit]
Article: Quentin Willson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Top Gear
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: Original presenter of Top Gear. ~2025-32265-53 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Graham Richardson

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

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

Nominator's comments: Australian Labor Party politician and media commentator. – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks to @Ianblair23 and others for fixing up the article, looks better now. Bremps... 19:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 7

[edit]

Jakarta School bombing

[edit]
Article: Jakarta School bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Bombings at SMA Negeri 72 Jakarta injures at least 96 people during Friday prayers. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters BBC News
Credits:

 CtrlAltSpace (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support the whole circumstance (an Islamophobia school bombing prepetated by a neo-Nazi Indonesian teen) is quite bizarre all thing considered, but the lack of death kinda made the impact fall short imo. Perhaps this would fit better as a DYK? NotKringe (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Rio Bonito do Iguaçu tornado

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Rio Bonito do Iguaçu tornado (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An F3 tornado in Rio Bonito do Iguaçu, Paraná, Brazil, leaves six people dead, at least 784 more injured and causes widespread damage. (Post)
News source(s): WCK The New York Times
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Rare and powerful. ArionStar (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I really hate to make this argument but 6 deaths is just not enough. For comparison we didn’t even post the first EF5 tornado in over a decade. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While tragic, this doesnt rise to the level where we would post weather on ITN. While there isnt a level of minimum deaths, we haven't been posting anything that isn't at least double digits for deaths due to significance. Noah, BSBATalk 00:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hurricane Noah, over 90% of the city got destroyed, 11k out of 14k got affected, is this unsignificant? International coverage as well. Iyusi766 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    11k houses, forgot to mention it. Iyusi766 (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Were it 90% of a large city I would support but this is little more than a town. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experience, ITN seems to shy away from posting anything to do with either records or damage and instead focuses on deaths. If a disaster doesnt cause a large number of deaths, it doesnt get posted. I don't necessarily agree with deaths being the only metric, but that's not something likely to change. Noah, BSBATalk 16:59, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Noah, just because ITN has a precedent doesn't mean that you need to !vote in any given way. If you object to any precedent, then you are well within your right to be bold and !vote in the way you desire. WP:MINIMUMDEATHS isn't a thing. Departure– (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support While normally I'd be opposed to posting a tornado of only F3 strength (Brazil uses the original Fujita scale and not the Enhanced Fujita (EF) scale like the US does, might want to revise the blurb) based solely on the expected impacts from a single tornado, this tornado in particular has been, from what I understand, the most impactful tornado of 2025 based on combined damage and casualties (2025 St. Louis tornado for damage cost was likely higher but the next most casualty-intensive was 2025 Somerset-London tornado, far below)--note also that while Brazil, as other South American countries such as Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina, does see tornadoes, they're much less common than in the United States. Note also that this tornado was posted on the Portuguese Wikipedia's equivalent to In The News (of course, bias towards same-language events--but they also posted Dick Cheney's death and the Louisville plane crash, which I saw as America-centric nominations). Unlike many of the US tornado events enwp ITN has featured, this event is also getting national-level state attention from Brazilian officials. Departure– (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect argument! ArionStar (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more ounce of perspective, from someone acquainted with recent tornado history: This appears to be most comparable to the Joplin tornado in terms of impacts to a single city, with more casualties but less fatalities (thankfully). Having a house completely destroyed and swept away versus being collapsed in on itself (EF5 vs F3) doesn't seem too important here; in both cases, the house is uninhabitable. As Iyusi766 brings up, 90% of the city was impacted, and I can only name a handful of times any single tornado has done that in the past century (Greensburg, Kansas, Manchester, South Dakota, Readyville, Tennessee, Fairdale, Illinois, and maybe Mayfield, Kentucky and Cayce, Kentucky--and and all of those were drastically smaller cities thnan Rio Bonito do Iguacu). Departure– (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: How many tornadoes have been posted so far? ArionStar (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re forgetting many towns, including Silver City, Mississippi. It’s really not that notable. EF5 23:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
City with 200 habitants versus 14k. EF5 Iyusi766 (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m providing an example of a town that suffered a similar percentage of damage. EF5 12:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might I remind you that event was also posted? Yes, it directly killed more, and yes there were more tornadoes both here and on March 24, but the impacts here, to me, honestly seem bigger. Departure– (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Departure. Why would anyone oppose this when it’s already been posted to the Portuguese Wikipedia’s In the news? 2600 etc (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Departure. Very significant level of damage and injury count. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Horst Panic

[edit]
Article: Horst Panic (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (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: Górnik Wałbrzych managerial legend who led them to the Ekstraklasa in 1983, a feat they haven't come remotely close to since. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Lack of information and details outside what looks like a resumé rather than an article. Some (several) sources are either primary or unreliable. CoryGlee 21:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CoryGlee: the article doesn't differ from standard football manager/player articles? Also which sources are you referring to? I think I've done a good job of finding references given that the Polish wiki counterpart has none and that it is almost impossible to sources from the PRL era. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN nominations require a higher level of quality than standard articles, including clear prose written in a narrative style. This may prove difficult for some subjects, but that does not excuse the requirement. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I love the name and the article mainly seems to need a picture which I'll sort out now. The article's prose seems quite clear and grammatical and so the complaints above seem excessive. If the details seem dry then so it goes – we're an encyclopedia, not writing poetry. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:54, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from straw-man arguments. No one said it was dry or had grammatical issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some evidence or example so that we may understand the objection better as it is currently unclear itself. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is that the article lacks narrative prose, so the evidence is the article in its entirety. That's fine if you disagree; judgments of quality are subjective. But do so without maligning and mischaracterizing others' comments. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:11, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do subrscribe to your comment, @GreatCaesarsGhost: – that was a subtle violation of civility, IMO. Cheers. CoryGlee 20:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GreatCaesarsGhost is unable to produce a single concrete example and so it's their complaint which is the straw man. For example, consider the lead:

"Horst Panic (12 July 1938 – 7 November 2025) was a Polish football player and manager. His professional playing career was with Górnik Wałbrzych, a club he started his managerial career with, leading them to a historic promotion to the Ekstraklasa in 1983, earning him a club legend status and a "best coach" award in a Słowo Polskie plebiscite. He later went on to manage numerous clubs, primarily in Lower Silesia."

This is prose and seems to provide a reasonably clear narrative. What's the problem with this? The answer is that there isn't a problem because the nay-sayers are unable to identify it clearly in an actionable way. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Lee Tamahori

[edit]
Article: Lee Tamahori (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): RNZ
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: Director of James Bond's Die Another Day in particular. ~2025-32054-26 (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Chinese carrier Fujian

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. Also important to note that the ship was launched in 2022 and it was already completed a few months ago. (non-admin closure)   Jalapeño   (u t g) 11:28, 9 November 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: Chinese aircraft carrier Fujian (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ China commissions the aircraft carrier Fujian (pictured) – the first of its class. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Indian News Network, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: This is not nuclear-powered like Russia's Burevestnik but, per the BBC, "Its entry into active duty marked a significant step forward..." Andrew🐉(talk) 19:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DYK is for new articles but this is not new, having been started 10 years ago. ITN is for topics which are in the news and that's why it's here. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to draw your attention to the Did You Know? project page, where it specifies "The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles..." (emphasis mine) DYK isn't purely new articles, but also covers those that have received substantial improvement, often tied to a major turning-point either in the subject (e.g, a project was completed) but in general a higher article quality. (e.g, it achieved GA status) So yes, this article could qualify for DYK, provided its quality was brought up substantially. Nottheking (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The development of a new type of ship is notable and is in the news. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Beyond military trivia, no one has indicated why this is significant at all for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 12:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Not even China’s first indigenously-built carrier - I would’ve supported posting the Shandong but we’re past that. The Kip (contribs) 15:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose This is just the first ship of a class, and I don't recall us ever blurbing any military vessel on those grounds. To check for comparison, I went back to check for the USS Gerald R. Ford, as that was the first EMALS-equipped carrier, and the first of its class, marking a major evolutionary & capability step for its respective navy. Not only was it not posted for any of its major milestones (launching, christening, acceptance & commissioning) no one even tried to nominate it.
It has appeared briefly in the news as a bit of a novelty, but this is with specific context, because anxiety over tensions in the Asia-Pacific region sells copy, and thus even minor advancements in the PLA's capabilities or posturing is going to get a briefly-lived news article... But that is trivia, falling far short of the standard for ITN. This would be good fodder for DYK: It's a curiosity, that ultimately isn't newsworthy beyond that. Nottheking (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The launch of Chinese aircraft carrier Shandong was blurbed. The commissioning of USS Jimmy Carter was blurbed. The maiden voyage of Oasis of the Seas was blurbed. And sundry accidents and incidents involving ships have been blurbed. Q.E.D.
And this article is still not eligible for DYK. I understand that because I've actually done over 100 DYKs including Venezuelan patrol boat Naiguatá.
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shandong (posted in 2017) has a good case to be blurbed as the first domestically produced aircraft carrier. I would have strongly opposed the blurbing of the others (from 2005 and 2009), and those discussions were from 15-20 years ago. There is no Q.E.D. as ITN has changed in its precedents since then. Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that Oasis of the Seas' notability partly rested upon a superlative: when she launched, she was the world's largest passenger-carrying ship. (and the Jimmy Carter is the world's largest submarine not built to carry ballistic missiles) And as Natg mentioned, there is no QED there even if it that weren't the case: ITN standards have been inexorably tightening over the years, (in part due to ITN no longer being a fairly-new feature that few editors put forth candidates for) and it's highly doubtful that comparable items would be blurbed today. Nottheking (talk) 21:39, 8 November 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.

November 6

[edit]

(Blurb posted) RD/blurb: James Watson

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: James Watson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Nobel prize-winning American molecular biologist James Watson (pictured) dies at the age of 97. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ American molecular biologist James Watson (pictured), co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, dies at the age of 97.
News source(s): The New York Times
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: Long, well-sourced article, a few citations missing Mooonswimmer 19:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible support (blurb) per the above. 2600 etc (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb Nobel prize alone doesn't really explain why he's notable enough for a blurb. Co-discovered of DNA structure tells you why he is. Basetornado (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cart before the horse, much? There's an RFC being drafted which might, depending on both the draft chosen and the result of the subsequent RFC, have an effect on the blurb criteria. We absolutely should not jump to the conclusion that 'we're in the process of killing deathblurbs'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for speaking on behalf of everyone *sigh* TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose/Pull Pretty much inline with Orbital here. Yes, a community proposal is ongoing so she can very well speak on behalf of us all. As for cart before horse, not really, if such opposes can make the broader community know that there is an ongoing process for eliminating this all the better, and I would read this as directly impinging on the notability of all RD blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's absolutely cart before horse. Plus how would opposing this in any way make the site better? Basetornado (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter how does blurbing RDs on an ad-hoc basis make us any good. If anything consistently batting to do away with these as Orbital has done, does push us towards a better path, the reason reforms are being dicussed right now.
And since RD blurbs do serve as featuring bios. What if anything is achieved by highlighting on the main page someone as crudely sexist and racist like Watson. I also wonder what was the rush to post this (Schwede66), without any substantial comments having been made on his significance beyond the fact that he won a Nobel. Gotitbro (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I !voted, the article does not give any clear concise reason why he was a major figure. Co-discovery of the structure of DNA is an achievement, but nearly every achievement recognized by the Nobels is comparable (its why its awarded) but that doesn't mean the laureate is necessarily a major figure. That's why I push that we need something like an impact or legacy section that summarizes this information for any death blurb so that we are justifying it to the reader, which is still absent on Watson' article. In addition, because of the issues around his views outside his academics, we really need such a section to be clear that the general view on Watson comes out to being a great figure. Too many !votes here focused on one solitary discovery which is not what makes for a major figure. Masem (t) 16:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now that some time has passed since the initial rush of glorifying obits, more than a fair share of reportage devotes its space to his controversies than any post-Nobel achievements. The claim that the Nobel alone makes him notable is untenable and when considered in toto beyond the shared [emphasis] "discovery" of DNA structure there is nothing to establish transformation of any of any of the fields worked in. Gotitbro (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should not feature someone because they have bad views or racist ideologies. We recently did so with the blurb of Charlie Kirk. In my opinion, it is clear and obvious that Watson deserves a blurb, as the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA is one of the top 5-10 scientific discoveries of the 20th century. As such, there have been no opposes due to significance, except for those who oppose all death blurbs (OLDMANDIES) and Masem who requests a legacy section. Natg 19 (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kirk was death as a story. With RD blurbs, when death isn't the story it's regular fare to see opposition to featuring people with bigoted track records. I am surprised this wasn't even brought up but that is likely due to the initial reporting which has significantly changed since ("worst of science", "pariah", "racist" from a recent search).
But the opposition as such as I lay out above isn't due to the views of Watson, it stems from the fact that nothing has been shown for significance beyond the "discovery" of the Helix structure (itself a result of multiple efforts, this without even bringing Watson's dismissive attitude towards Franklin to put it mildly). If one discovery or one price is enough to blurb someone without considering the sum of their work then there was something wrong with the process. Masem's want of a legacy section stems not as a justification for those sections in and of itself but to clearly show the blurb worthiness of RDs especially so when that legacy includes significant detraction. Gotitbro (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbing RD's on occasion is good because it invites discussion and people reading articles they wouldn't have otherwise. I saw the wiki article posted on different social media's in the last day or two. Which likely came from people seeing it on the front page. They did something notable. This isn't just about a Nobel prize. If it was just a nobel prize, I wouldn't be defending it. But it's about being a co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. Something that virtually everyone now knows about. One discovery can be enough to blurb someone. Especially when it's something so common knowledge now. Removing these blurbs, removes those discussions and people reading more. I genuinely have no idea why there's such an opposition to death blurbs. Every argument i've seen against them, seems to be based on the idea that only what a small group of editors think is notable, rather than what people who use the site, might want to read about. The recent closure of the Mamdani nomination, because it didn't fit within pre described guidelines, despite it being the most viewed article on the site. Is just another example of editors not realising what people actually want to read.Basetornado (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tenet of attributing that discovery to specific individuals is quite debatable as I highlight above. And if that (and the Nobel for it) is the crux of arguments for "transformative" to rationale a blurb here, I simply don't see it being justified. Considering the legacy as a whole and with the articles coming of the press now, the case to feature this individual prominently as "tranformative" on the main page becomes even harder to justify.
As for Mamdani that debate has been had and the community has decided, correctly in my view and in line with precedence, crystal and significance, to not feature it. Views are never material for ITN, to repeat the refrain those interested in most viewed articles can download the Wikipedia Mobile app (which features these on the main page) or bookmark WP:TOP25 but ITN simply isn't going to factor those in. Gotitbro (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a system where Nauru's election is eligible (an election that I was able to find two Australian news story's on, their biggest ally and partner), but an election that was covered worldwide wasn't. That's clearly a broken system.
Again, this blurb being posted created discussion. Being a co-discoverer of something that literally everyone now knows about it is pretty transformative. Just as being the architect of the war on terror that changed the world dramatically was blurb worthy with Cheney. I disagree with a large number of death blurbs nominated. I generally don't believe that actors and the like should be posted. I don't even think most politicians should be posted. But the last two have been notable and worth it. Again if it was just a Nobel prize or being VP, then no. But it wasn't for either of them. Basetornado (talk) 08:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN dicarding dismissiveness towards smaller countries is not what I would call a broken system, an ITNR item where stories of national importance (elections) can be featured as long as the article quality is good is pretty solid. I for instance, have never opposed a story provided that its significance at the bare minimum from the country it stems for is well justified. But RD blurbs are a indeed an ad-hoc system with no fixed criteria for significance, you can detract posting actors other will for politicians and I would be more than okay with completely doing away with it as the discussion for reforms on the Talk page proceeds. Gotitbro (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What i'm saying is that we have a system where microstates are automatically assumed to be notable enough, regardless of the actual notability or coverage. While also having a system that says if it's a mayoral election, it shouldn't be posted, regardless of the notability or coverage. It's not about trying to remove those microstates, more that a system that only looks at the level of the election, not the actual election itself is flawed and broken.
RD Blurbs honestly are fine as they are. The reforms i'm seeing are to effectively remove them entirely. Which is pretty absurd. We don't have a deluge of blurb noms. Generally it's pretty clear when noms are going to get up or not based on the person. If there's some discussion about it, great. What is the harm? Basetornado (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support I shouldn't even have to say why. Everybody knows what the structure of DNA looks like, lets honour one of the primary individuals who discovered it. I understand some users want to move away from RD blurbs but this is certainly a stand-out case. (especially when compared to Cheney, which somehow got blurbed) hungry (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Woodrow Lowe

[edit]
Article: Woodrow Lowe (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Ledger-Enquirer
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 football player and coach. Probably needs a copyedit after my expansion, but otherwise should be just detailed enough for RD? --The Robot Parade 22:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Pauline Collins

[edit]
Article: Pauline Collins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News The Irish Independent
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: British actress best known for her award-winning role in Shirley Valentine. ItsShandog (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gilson Lavis

[edit]
Article: Gilson Lavis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Express
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British musician, drummer of Squeeze. Article currently a stub. Death announced on this date. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Director-General of UNESCO

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Khaled El-Enany (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Khaled El-Enany (pictured) is elected the new Director-General of UNESCO. (Post)
News source(s): UNESCO Barron's
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not ITNR, but UNESCO is one of the most notorious and historically important UN agencies. The closest precedent for posting the election of its Director-General is in 2009 with Irina Bokova, many years ago. In any case, El-Enany article is fine and I am just finishing up a few minor details. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose UNESCO is important but that position isn’t really, not all that much coverage Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Probs attach that with the 1b museum in Cairo. Basically the campaign funds.Psephguru (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Paul Ignatius

[edit]
Article: Paul Ignatius (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington 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: Article has been expanded, updated and is well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the last surviving member of the Johnson Administration. article is good enough. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Marshawn Kneeland

[edit]
Article: Marshawn Kneeland (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CBS Sports, NBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Football player for the Dallas Cowboys CREditzWiki (yap)

November 5

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Andrea de Adamich

[edit]
Article: Andrea de Adamich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Motorsport.com, The Independent
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: Italian retired Formula One driver. Article should be of sufficient quality for RD. News announced on Nov 5, exact date unspecified. This is my first nom so apologizes if this was filed improperly. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ronald Venetiaan

[edit]
Article: Ronald Venetiaan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Barron's (English) and De Volkskrant in Dutch, which is Suriname's official language.
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: Long-serving Suriname's President. Article thoroughly sourced; I acknowledge, though, lack of background info. CoryGlee 00:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Article looks sufficient to me.
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted to ongoing) Al-Fashir massacre

[edit]
Article: Al-Fashir massacre (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Executive Director of the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab estimates more could have died in the Al-Fashir massacre than during the entire Gaza War
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Sudan, the Rapid Support Forces commits massacres against civilians during its siege on the city of Al-Fashir.
News source(s): PBS Aljazeera
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Ongoing massacre according to reporting, possibly surpasses Gaza in death toll Bremps... 21:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree that it should return to the news box, and once it leaves should be next to sudan in brackets until we have confirmed its over. Also I have proposed a blurb (or I will, after I do this) note regarding the blurb: not the best blurb, and would prefer a better written one, but the comparison is needed as thats what the quote was, and Yale HRL is the main source for Sudan casualties Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cant figure out for the life of me how to get a blurb to work Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
got it! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I clearly wasn't paying attention last week. Blurb support struck: the proposed one isn't great, and then there's the whole "repeat posting" issue which I'd rather not get into. The article remains surprisingly good, however. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the blurb ive proposed is just what it could look like. Would prefer someone smarter to make a better one Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the basis this is not getting near daily updates on events, due to a significant lack of reporting in this area. For example the last event was Nov 4 on observance of mass Graves but we have no death toll, when they were killed, etc. It's extremely speculative compared to the type of reporting out of Gaza or Ukraine for comparison. We still have the Sudan conflict in ongoing, so unless there is far better daily coverage of this specific event, it doesn't meet that quality requirement for ongoing. Masem (t) 23:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems wrong to have Gaza genocide be in ongoing but not Sudanese one simply due to less coverage in the west. Feels like western bias Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As commented by BSMRD below, there's nothing to indicate that there is ongoing mass killings here. We know across a day or so they killed numerous people (why we blurbed it) but all events after are examining things like digging of mass graves which does not imply further killings. ITs a discrete event and unless it can be shown there are still ongoing killings, its not appropriate for being on Ongoing. Masem (t) 01:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but DMartin makes an excellent point. It depends on how long this massacre will keep going. I'm a bit neutral/skeptic if this massacre is going to end in a few days (which I doubt but just a hypothetical). I support @Abcmaxx's suggestion to merge it with the Sudanese civil war. TwistedAxe [contact] 00:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, my personal and unprofesional opinion is the massacre will end soon, at least for the most part, executions will continue for as long as the RSF exists. Soon the large scale killings in Al-fashir will end, due to a lack of people left to kill. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a huge and terrible development in the war, I like Abcmaxx's idea. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb should probably be changed to be just about the massacre itself without invoking Gaza. War deaths in both instances are incredibly difficult to quantify and this is would be notable even if the Gaza Genocide were not occurring. The two needn't be compared. Casablanca 🪨(T) 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, but its a quote from the executive director, and "estimates more than 68,000 dead" isnt as factual. I wish there was a better quote to cite. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important to cover this because it is being outshone by Gaza coverage despite being much worse. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not go into a suffering competition, but yes it is true that at the moment many more people are dying in sudan than in gaza. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITs only one person's estimate, nowhere near the level of expert consensus we should use to compare to Gaza. Masem (t) 01:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, Oppose ongoing, Oppose comparison to Gaza in blurb. Absolutely horrific and deserving of a blurb beyond the ongoing war, but also a discrete event that doesn't need to be compared to anything. Would prefer an estimated death toll over making it some kind of contest. BSMRD (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would too. The issue is the people who made that estimate (Yale humanitarian research labs, who are the main source for casualties and do a lot of research regarding satellites) explicitly compared it to the Gaza genocide in a quote. However no one else is really making estimates. And it’s less factual to say “more than 68,000” dead Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I only nominated this for ongoing, not a new blurb. Someone changed the proposal. Bremps... 01:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, sorry i was trying to add a proposed blurb but made a mistake, my appologies. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d note that the discussion at Talk:Masalit massacres (2023–present) is heading towards relabeling the article as a genocide. However, the scope hasn’t been determined yet. Once that article is moved & updated, adding that article to “Ongoing” seems like the best idea. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support altblurb, but oppose comparative Gaza blurb per above and weak oppose ongoing as I think the Al-Fashir massacre merits a separate blurb. It can then roll into ongoing after - although I prefer ongoing to not posting at all. I have written the altblurb in a way which avoids attributing a number figure to those killed, as whether it is in the thousands or tends of thousands etc is unclear at this point given the situation on the ground. The altblurb reflects the consensus in the reliable sources, which is that massacres are happening, even if we are unsure of the scale. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, although consensus in sources does seem to agree on "more than 2,500", which was what was in the blurb before (this is a request to return it too the ITN) Pencilceaser123 (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information A similar blurb was posted on October 29. ArionStar (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support ongoing, meets the criteria at WP:ONGOING, while actual updates would be good, the article's received substantial edits daily. In the instance it only lasts a few more days, another discussion may not be a waste of time as there’s the possibility to replace with Masalit massacres (2023–present) by which time its title and scope will probably be settled Kowal2701 (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pencilceaser123 May you please withdraw the blurbs? I know you're contributing in good faith, but we already blurbed this story last week. I created this discussion to focus on an ongoing ticker. There already seems to be confusion, as @Orbitalbuzzsaw above didn't understand it was a proposed ongoing item. If you really want to propose new blurbs I would start a new section but I would advise against it. Bremps... 02:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ongoing Per Gaza genocide. ArionStar (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry that was my bad and a mistake, as its been posted to ongoing now I wont withdraw it bcz some people do seem to support a blurb. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support as this is absolutely horrifying and should be brought to attention to the international community in hope of interventions to prevent further bloodshed of innocent civilians. David A (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support alt blurb, Strong oppose original blurb Support alt blurb for obvious reasons, the horrifying significance justifies it being ITN, but the original proposed blurb would be terrible as it's for some reason comparing this massacre to an entirely different one even though the two are completely unrelated. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I would like to explain my original blurb. It’s based of a quote from the Yale HRL which are the main source for information on casualties. I would much rather it not be comparing it but that’s why I did that Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, this was already posted as a blurb when Al-Fasher fell and the massacres began last week. It just rolled off, and putting it in Ongoing seems the right move so as this story not to get two bites of the blurb apple so to speak. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Neutral on ongoing but clearly oppose a blurb here. Already posted and we simply do not repost blurbs. The recourse after blurbs roll-off is ongoing which has already been done here. WP:Trout to Pencilceaser123 who added the blurb proposal in the middle of nowhere without checking whether it had been posted before. Gotitbro (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I did a silly and mistake. But I definitely did know that it had previously been posted with a blurb (I just thought the blurb shouldn’t have been removed), you should check who nominated it the first time! Pencilceaser123 (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Blurbs are not removed they roll-off as new ones are added, there is no procedure at ITN to stick blurbs, the only altenative is an ongoing nom which this was before you inserted an out of procedure blurb to it. Gotitbro (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support blurb; I think it deserves it. A very significant massacre. 2600 etc (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It already had a blurb when Al Fasher first fell to the RSF, as I mentioned above, which properly rolled off due to new blurbs replacing it. We don’t give two bites at the proverbial blurb apple to a single story unless something massive changes, that’s what Ongoing is meant for. - GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 08:52, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 4

[edit]

(Reviews needed) RD: Keith Browner

[edit]
Article: Keith Browner (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC
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 football player known for being a part of the large Browner football family. Been meaning on expanding for a while, finally done. Should be good to go for the most part. --The Robot Parade 05:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support article looks in shape and good to go. Info about his early life and college career is missing but it happens with a lot of biographies where people are notable enough, but with a largely reclusive/private life. So, I think it is good to go because what he was known for is thoroughly sourced. Just a detail @The Robot Parade:, if you could address the only citation tag, it'd be great. Cheers. CoryGlee 14:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(references needed) RD: Krzysztof Sobieski

[edit]
Article: Krys Sobieski (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Polish FA (in Polish)
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 Polish professional football goalkeeper, known in the US as an indoor footballer. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted, later pulled) Tuzla retirement home fire

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Tuzla retirement home fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A fire in a retirement home (building pictured) in Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina kills at least 12 people and injures at least 30 others. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, CNN, Washington Post, BBC.
Credits:

 SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, both of these are odd postings for me as "sensational stories" with (comparatively) low impact. Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-Posting Oppose. Although tragic, a fire that kills ~12 people hardly seems notable to make ITN. But, if we are posting the UPS airplane crash, I guess why not. ~2025-31766-81 (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting oppose per Andrew. Tragic story, but not widely reported; we can see a lot more stories on Zohran, who wasn't posted. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not post based on number of news stories, we are not a news ticker. Otherwise, every day would have at least 2 or more Trump stories, for example. Masem (t) 01:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your thoughts. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems very not comparable. Grenfell had 70+ deaths and 70 more injured, while this has 12 deaths. Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not comparable. Thirty-five vs. zero language hyperlinks… changing to Neutral. ArionStar (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
..so?   Jalapeño   (u t g) 13:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not size, but when you factor in differences in location and what type of news coverage that would get, very much similar. This is the type of media systematic bias we should be trying to ignore and work against. Masem (t) 13:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) US Government shutdown

[edit]
Article: 2025 United States federal government shutdown (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States federal government shutdown surpasses 35 days, making it the longest in U.S. history. (Post)
News source(s): AP
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history. MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Notable, longest ever which is interesting. American, which can be an issue. But seen it reported on internationally. Basetornado (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while its domestic and american, longest shutdown of the government of the worlds biggest economy feels pretty notable. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose US domestic issue. No long-standing notability. Tofusaurus (talk) 06:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The shutdown will definitely affect the midterms results next year, which is a national election, which we almost always post.
    I’m saying since this shutdown is also stopping funding for Department of State and Defense employees, at some point something might happen in regards to US foreign influence. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We do not know what effect, if any, the shutdown will have on next year's midterm elections. US political psychodramas can have very short half-lives. Likewise, we do not know if "something might happen" due to "foreign influence." This is all just pure crystal balling and entirely inadmissible when assessing newsworthiness of an ITN candidate. Dr Fell (talk) 09:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL. The shutdown might end next week or it might end next month. We're not here to make assumptions about what the consequences of this shutdown might be, if there will be any at all.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 09:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As per WP:ITN, it is expected for news stories to be domestic to some degree. There is nothing about "long-standing notability" in WP:ITN either. This argument has nothing to do with ITN's goals or with any of ITN's loose guidelines for distinguishing "significance". ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Longest being a month. Beyond the fact that federal employees in the US have not received their salaries what if any sigificance does this have besides setting a "record". Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s ≈2.5 million civilian employees and 1.5 million active duty military who have all gone a month without pay, which is pretty significant. Also 42 million+ people have gone without benefits, and millions more have been affected by federal services being unavailable. This isn’t just political, it’s actually is affecting people.–DMartin 15:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unfortunately of global relevance. Per the guy who claims it was the Dem's fault even though his party controls both houses. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is the third shutdown in seven years, so it's definitely not a rare event. Moreover, being the longest doesn't make any significant difference as nothing spectacular happened today when it surpassed the previous one.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Common, domestic, not overwhelmingly notable even within the context of US politics.  Nixinova   T   C   08:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you’re underestimating how notable this event is within the US, considering that it’s a test on whether either political party will budge on negotiations including food stamps being held hostage. And since the shutdown is lasting long, it has ripple effects like a decrease in GDP, flight delays, and an increased chance of a recession that would inevitably affect the world. PrimalMustelid (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very unprecedented for a full shutdown (not partial) to last 35 days. Shutdown has been abundantly covered, and it wouldn’t hurt to at least have it as a blurb at all. PrimalMustelid (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose How does this affect anything outside of the US? Don't see how this holds up as being notable outside of the US. TwistedAxe [contact] 09:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the political party leverage attempts, decrease in GDP per week, flight delays, etc, yes this does have effects domestically and even internationally, even if the effects are more subtle, especially since the world economy is still very dependent on the US not going into a recession with increased chances from the shutdown. PrimalMustelid (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, decrease in US GDP and flight delays within the US. The world economy is not crashing because the United States is having it's 10000th government shutdown. Also, no major economy is dependent on the US - just some that are heavily influenced by it. TwistedAxe [contact] 13:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By 10000th, do you mean eleventh? Only four of which have been in the 21st century? –DMartin 16:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I suppose me adding five zeros wasn't enough to show that it was a blatantly exaggerated number to prove a point. Nevertheless, my point still stands in that this has no long lasting effects. It hasn't hurt any economy whatsoever so far (I doubt it'll even hurt the US economy that much but it's hard to say right now). It's not even making any headlines outside of the US. TwistedAxe [contact] 20:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You just seemed to be under the impression that government shutdowns were common which they are not.–DMartin 23:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst I'm not claiming government shutdowns in the US are common by any means, they don't seem to be that much of an uncommon occurrence when Trump is president as seen in this table. Either way, my point wasn't the fact that this is a common occurrence in the US, but merely the fact that this has absolutely no long lasting effects beyond the borders of the United States. I could be proven wrong when this shutdown is over but as things stand right now (and as we've seen from the previous shutdowns), there are absolutely no long lasting effects from a shutdown like this. As other people have pointed out aswell, the blurb seems to be quite misleading. We don't blurb records at ITN unless they have a significant impact on the world economy or in some way cause an impact on a regional economy. If this does indeed affect the United States economy in a considerable way, then I'd argue that this nom is ITN-worthy, but should be re-blurbed for clarification. TwistedAxe [contact] 23:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh 10000th is untruthful. There are 10000 ways to say this event doesn't matter, but this isn't it. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn’t have to “affect the rest of the world” to be newsworthy — ITN highlights significant and widely reported events, not just those with global consequences. A UPS plane crash in the U.S., for example, can still merit inclusion because it’s a major incident involving a large company, aviation safety, and loss of life, even if no non-U.S. citizens were killed. Many ITN items don’t directly affect readers worldwide, but they inform people about important developments across the globe. The purpose of ITN is to keep readers aware of notable events, not to limit coverage only to those that have an international impact. Cinaroot (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose domestic drama. Talking about a recession and, therefore, of real and notable international impact, are conjectures that still need to be confirmed, although this may not necessarily happen. That it is the longest in history is trivial and more suited to DYK. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK is not for trivia. It's for showcasing off new articles. This article is about 35 days old and does not qualify. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to be pedantic, but its also for articles that have been expanded significantly recently or have recently been promoted. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but they have to have been expanded fivefold, which for an article already that size is going to be nigh on impossible.–DMartin 23:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I wasnt saying that article was eligible for DYK, I was just correcting a mistake Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Alsor above. ~2025-31360-41 (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss this once the shut down is over? ITN does not post arbitrary "milestones". Howard the Duck (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, "ongoing" requires a new nomination. And "Ongoing" expects an article that is consistently updated. Natg 19 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) UPS Airlines Flight 2976

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: UPS Airlines Flight 2976 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ UPS Airlines Flight 2976 crashes after takeoff from Louisville, Kentucky, killing at least 9 people. (Post)
News source(s): New York Times BBC News
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Death toll is increasing and the crash has been gaining significant coverage. Tofusaurus (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also note I will instantly support later once there is sufficient, fixed, and reliable information about the event SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 05:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Zohran Mamdani

[edit]
No consensus to post. Closing again. Tone 14:06, 6 November 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: Zohran Mamdani (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The 2025 United States elections result in a blue wave with victories including Zohran Mamdani (pictured) as Mayor of New York.
News source(s): [7] [8][9]
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Mamdani’s election is a notable event in New York City and U.S. politics. The race attracted significant national and international coverage and his unexpected victory over several prominent establishment candidates. Cinaroot (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the alternate blurb correct? What was the status of David Dinkins's membership in the Democratic Socialists of America when he was elected? Einsof (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed it. sorry Cinaroot (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I think the democratic socialist aspect of it is notable, especially since Dinkins apparently tried to keep his association lower profile. Not quite sure how to word it though. Einsof (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    what about ?
    Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor of New York City, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor and the first openly self-identified democratic socialist to hold the position.
    is it too late to change it? Cinaroot (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if it's too late. I don't usually come to ITNC because I find the whole place toxic and cliquish, and there are seemingly endless reasons to disqualify a blurb from getting posted, even when there are blurbs on the front page that are left stagnating long after their subjects have moved out of the news cycle. You'd think this place was in charge of sending people into space with the amount of agonizing that goes on over every single decision. Einsof (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't decided on noteworthiness yet, but I added an altblurb that is a bit closer to how we normally write election blurbs. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but the closest I'd say was WB communists booted was boosted as comparison, but he's just mainstream dem party contunity.Psephguru (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Zohran_Mamdani Cinaroot (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What international repercussions? This is purely local. Even midterms are not generally for the main. Arjentina was not either. *opposePsephguru (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's "Arjentina"? ~2025-31331-24 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this and any union of this with any other election that happened today - This election and any of the other elections today, despite any attention they might get, just shouldn't be blurbed. At most we are seeing legislature and government changes in 2, just 2, out of 50 states. Unlike the Argentina midterms we just posted that actually effected things on a national level, this is purely local and as such I do not think this should be blurbed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very, very big deal in American politics. Even still, I'm not seeing any value to us posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mainstream incumbent party primary winner winning. if it was the Communist Party USA, tht'd bigger.Psephguru (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and good point.Psephguru (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bombay, Mexico City, Tokyo, Shanghai? I doubt it.Psephguru (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what's wrong with those, besides Shanghai which doesn't have elections in a meaningful sense? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad precedence for bloating the already bloated ITN is what would be it. We already have people asking for the expansion of WP:ITNELECTIONS to cover all manner of non-general elections, to arbitrarily ["population", "important city" etc.] add mayoral elections to this should be avoided at all costs. And let us be clear here, this is about a US mayoral election, the other cities editors list in here won't even be considered for ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN is not bloated. Remember Lugo? Howard the Duck (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NotKringe (talk) 04:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Mamdani's campaign garnered significant international attention, and his victory has major political implications. Coverage of the campaign was also nearly non-stop. RealAmericanNixonite (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was brought to the ITN talk page before being nominated and I will repost what I said then "Would oppose any election at any local level in any country, regardless of whatever crystal projections analysts may have for any of them. If anything comes off from these (protests, national/federal conflict) the siginificance would hinge on that not the local election. Have opposed elections of states with limited recognition, sub-sub-national election are simply a no go." And why is it crystal one may ask? Because the significance in virtually all sources about this is not about a relatively unimportant mayoral race but what future a demsoc winning holds for the democratic party in the US. Exactly the stuff ITN should avoid. And I agree with others here about systemic bias, no other non-US mayoral election would even have been nominated here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Finally, we agree. Dr Fell (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proper metric for whether this sufficiently "important" is the level and depth of coverage in reliable sources and international news outlets, not subjective personal opinions about the global importance of New York City. It has been demonstrated that those RS and global news outlets overwhelmingly treated this mayoral election as notable and covered it in depth accordingly. Many of the oppose votes boil down to something along the lines of, "I don't care if the global RS and news sources are treating this as significant, my personal political opinion is that mayoral elections in the United States are not significant". That is on its face an improper and not policy based vote rationale. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is within the bounds of policy to see the merit of a nomination under WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. And more than a decade worth of precedent and experience tells me why we shouldn't post city elections. The significance you speak of stems entirely from the crystal analysis of this minor mayoral election to future democratic prospects, which is treading beyond ITN and even enwiki P&G. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Widespread coverage; in my view, "not a nation-level election" is an irrelevant rationale to use and should be completely ignored, when the point here is that it is widely covered. Tube·of·Light 04:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question: Sadiq Khan was posted? ArionStar (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArionStar He was not, I believe. The Kip (contribs) 04:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he was not posted. Dr Fell (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No it wasn't. STRONG OPPOSE and SNOW close. Rushtheeditor (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadiq Khan is 21 years older than Mamdani and had an established political career before becoming mayor. No one knew Mamdani 1 year ago. New York City is significantly more prominent than London, attracting roughly twice as many visitors and generating a GDP of over $2.5 trillion compared to London’s $770 billion. I could go on... Cinaroot (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I question how any of that is relevant to posting this blurb. The Kip (contribs) 04:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To show how its relevant to international readers as well, to show his achievement and what makes him different. if you just google zohran mamdani japan, zohran mamdani india, zohran mamdani france etc... you will see international news coverage. Cinaroot (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    also Zohran is immigrant. Cinaroot (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, irrelevant trivia. Dr Fell (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    London and New York City are the two Alpha ++ global cities. ArionStar (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    GaWC city ratings are a bit proprietary, but I do think you're making a very good point. A new head of government for a micronation would be considered ITNR and blurbed, but that new head of government would be almost certainly much less impactful than some subnational leaders (governor of California, mayor London, etc). I think this should be a much larger discussion on the baseline weighting of election results of different polities re ITNR. Dr Fell (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing The Kip, none of these pieces of trivia impact the blurbworthiness of this election result. Dr Fell (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    just google zohran mamdani japan, zohran mamdani india, zohran mamdani france, zohran mamdani china, etc.... you see international news coverage. what more do you want? Cinaroot (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    International news coverage is not the sole indicator of blurbworthiness, and keep in mind this may be subjected to an elevated level of coverage because it's the largest city in (arguably) the most powerful country in the world. Again, though I often find it cliched when used here, let's be careful to avoid Americentrism and/or similar. The Kip (contribs) 04:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should not be afraid to show whats trending and popular. Cinaroot (talk) 04:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not a social media site. For example, we do not post when Taylor Swift drops a new album. Djprasadian (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    International news coverage isn't the sole indicator. But the fact that it is being covered literally everywhere, means more than some lazy "we don't want to appear americentrist". If what is arguably the largest news story in the world currently isn't being posted. That is going to be noticeable to people coming to the front page. Basetornado (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, most editors and readers would realize that why city elections of all things may not meet the encyclopedic threshold for main page WP coverage. If the systemic bias of even considering this for ITN isn't apparent to some editors, they should read the rationales here why this is opposed even beyond reasons of bias. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read the rationales. They seem to boil down to "Hey this is in the news and heavily reported, but we don't report city elections, so we won't." "Systemic Bias" is a massive stretch. The bias i'm seeing is "we don't want to appear americancentric", which is just lazy. Again, ITN stands for "In the News". Not reporting something that is heavily in the news, because it doesn't fit within some parameters is a sign of something wrong with those parameters. Basetornado (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you can ask for those parameters to be changed, and a discussion for this (elections) is going on right now at Talk. But as long as those stand, the opposition is absolutely justitifed. Pointing out and countering the systemic bias is not lazy, it is exactly what enwiki and WP or any wiki project should strive against. That it in this case stretches us to discard every ITN precedent and current criteria should be all the more concerning. Gotitbro (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Countering systemic bias doesn't include ignoring stories that are heavily reported. I will go ask for just that. Because it is lazy. It's concerning that "This is in the news" means nothing for an "In the News" feature. This overly heavy reliance on protocols does not help anyone. It actively makes wikipedia a worse place. Basetornado (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with Eric Adams.
    I do not think we blurbed his election. Djprasadian (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how the opinions of editors in a single discussion that took place nearly a decade ago are particularly relevant here. Why are we eternally bound to that one decision? Loytra✨ 04:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to wiki bureaucracy Cinaroot (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because User:Loytra it was snow close, despite being the first election of a Muslim to a major Western capital - and a slightly larger city at that. It wasn't even close, even though Khan was well known in politics for years. Other than his being Muslim, I don't see anything different than when Adams was elected - and not a single person proposed that being posted! This is very local, and not even a first. Nfitz (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz FWIW if that election had occurred today I would probably be in favour of an ITN entry. I think that consensus is liable to change after a decade and that the views of those in 2016 shouldn't really have much bearing on the conversation now (beyond just serving as a, "oh hey, this is what editors previously agreed on. Good to note. Anyway..."). Loytra✨ 07:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was only in 2016, @Loytra - and it wasn't agreed on - it was unanimous! I'd argue the opposite, electing a Muslim mayor was much bigger news a decade ago, than it is today, with the advancements in diversity and inclusion. We've seen all sorts of Western places elect leaders who are Muslim and from other groups; which we wouldn't have seen 20 to 30 years ago. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The election of a mayor of New York City is not blurbworthy. ITN only deems elections of heads of state or government blurbworthy. Djprasadian (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unfortunately seems to not pass WP:HOWITN, despite being in the international spotlight (Example: see UK, Israel). I will however remind people that WP:ITNGLOBAL exists, as I see some argue it's not internationally relevant. Yes I am a nerd -XCBRO172 (How could you tell?) 05:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A mayor getting elected isn't worthy of ITN. Yes, even if he's an American mayor. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 05:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The election of a mayor of New York City is blurbworthy. Scuba 05:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the mayor of New York City has minimal significance nationally, let alone internationally. While his election might serve as a bellwether for future elections in the United States, any such speculation is WP:CRYSTAL.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support Although this is a local mayoral election, it has received a significant amount of international attention, and is thus "in the news". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Similar to above. "Only" a mayoral election, but has received widespread international coverage. Certainly more than other stories that do get posted. Basetornado (talk) 05:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Altlburb Added alt blurb that shows why this is notable. The fact he ran and won as a Socialist candidate is the reason the story is so big. His religion is also part of that, but socialist is the story i've seen run more often. Basetornado (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose if anything, the important story is the combined wins racked up by the Democrats tonight across the US, Mamdani's win is only a small part of that (eg things like Californa Prop 50). But even to that end, that's still a far cry from national politics and not the type of story we post. This is really a systematic bias due to how much of the available English sources cover US politics, and we should not be swayed by the attention the press has given this. Masem (t) 05:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those other stories are effectively footnotes. We absolutely should be swayed by international press coverage. What's the point of having a "In the News" feature if we ignore what's actually in the news worldwide? Basetornado (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a local election no matter how much sensational coverage its getting. Long term significance is likely to be largely local. This is an excellent example of the sort of serious institutional bias we have to contend with. Anywhere else in the world and the press would have yawned, if they even bothered to note it at all. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Beyond ITN/R minimums, it is not our place at Wikipedia to judge elections on their importance. Mamdani's victory, even though this is a mayoral race, is the lead story on the front page on The New York Times, the BBC, Le Monde (in French), Die Welt (in German), The Hindu, Al Jazeera, Reforma (in Spanish), El Pais (also Spanish), and the Mainichi Shinbum (in Japanese), and not far below that on Haaretz. I'm curious what more international coverage editors are seeking for this event to be considered in the news. DecafPotato (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's our job to judge the importance of any election that is not ITNR. That is the principle reason for why we would even consider posting any subnational election. Which I am almost invariably opposed to because it will always be American elections that get the coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We must certainly consider the importance of a non-ITN/R election. But Wikipedians' assertions of a broader significance one way or the other are not the metric we should use. It is reliable sources — in this case, the international media — whose judgements we follow. It is why, for instance, we just posted the non-ITN/R Argentine midterm elections (so always...American isn't right). If RSes even outside of the U.S. or English world deem Mamdani's election worthy of front-page news, so shall we. DecafPotato (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    well explained. ty Cinaroot (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The precise details of why this doesn't reach ITN significance and precedence have been detailed by different editors above. To say that the merits of this election haven't been judged is simply incorrect. The onus for non-ITNR elections is on those who want to post a blurb here. "If RSes even outside of the U.S. or English world deem Mamdani's election worthy of front-page news, so shall we." is simply not how we do things here. While editors may forget this, ITN is encyclopedic news not a news ticker.
    I find the comparision of national [midterm] elections to mayoral elections completely off-track. Gotitbro (talk) 06:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the "In the News" feature isn't based on what's in the news, then what is it for? If it's not how we do things here, then there are clearly issues with how things are done here. If we're just going to ignore a major news story that is being heavily reported literally everywhere. What are we doing here? Basetornado (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked this same question several years ago and got the same kind of demotivational non-rationales that are being presented here. This place blows, and it's a shame because it could be so much better. Einsof (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be a lot of "the protocols say this, so nothing else matters", rather than thinking "Hey no one's going to die if we post something against them, perhaps there can be notable exceptions at times." Basetornado (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN irregulars should know that if main page coverage was "the" ITN criteria we wouldn't even need this forum, but that isn't the case. There is a reason city/sub-national election are not ITNR and haven't been posted at ITN ever. To post this then against more than a decade worth of ITN precedence to the contrary would require solid arguments why a relatively minor mayoral election is significant, not just handwaving to news coverage. The only rationale that has come for that is that the candidate is a demsoc, Muslim/immigrant etc. or crystal assertions of future prospects of the democratic party. This is no way satisfies ITN significance. If this election sees immediate seismic shifts, protests, conflicts that might be worthy of consideration but on its own, no it simply isn't. Gotitbro (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again it's the "In the News" section. What are we doing by saying "This is in the news, but that doesn't matter." The winning candidate being a socialist in America is the reason for it's notability. It's not a crystal ball to argue that. Main page coverage shouldn't be the only factor, I do agree. What I don't agree with is when it's literally the front page everywhere. Precedents are great and all. But if we're only ever going to stick to them, that's just lazy. If we want to continue to be lazy and stick with old precedents, great. But change the name from "In the News" to "Things wiki editors think are important enough". Basetornado (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Things wiki editors think are important enough", exactly why WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE exists. I agree the name can be changed (Encyclopedic news perhaps) but that isn't material for this blurb. Yes, Mamdani being a socialist is why this is receiving coverage but ultimately that doesn't change the fact that this has no immediate impact beyond New York City. Similarly so goes for any third-party winner in unimportant positions in the US. And unless editors here want to argue that the mayor of New York is somehow wholly influential to US politics as a whole the opposition to blurbing this is very well sustained. Gotitbro (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's in the news, it's notable. Who cares what the wider impacts are. What's the wider impacts of most things currently blurbed? The Dodgers won? There was electoral violence in an African country? Fukoaka won? Brazilian police killed a lot of people in a raid? There's little wider impact on any of them. What they are though is notable. This story is also notable. That's the point. Basetornado (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    700 people being killed in Tanzania, more than 100 in Brazil, the first female Japanese PM. If you don't think these are immediately notable, I don't know what to tell you. Wider significance/impact isn't the question, immediate one is. For an NYC election, there isn't any, all the significance comes from what now and entirely WP:CRYSTAL speculations. These simply won't standup for this or any similar election anywhere else.
    PS: The world series is WP:ITNR and as much as I disagree with the sports hogging going at that place, editors put in the effort to gain consensus and show why significance should be presumed for this a priori. Gotitbro (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they weren't notable. I said they were. It's not crystal speculation, just as the first female japanese pm wouldn't be either.
    I understand the World Series is ITNR. I agree with sport being ITNR. Basetornado (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN irregulars should know This attitude is exactly the problem. Any editor should be able to come to ITN, read a minimal amount of guidelines, and weigh in on which blurbs get posted. This should not be a separate appendage of the project in which self-appointed "ITN regulars" chuck every blurb proposal into oblivion because it fails to satisfy some piece of ITN lore that the average editor doesn't care about. I well and truly do not give a shit that some group of editors decided at some point in the past that ITN won't post subnational election results. This kind of gatekeeping makes ITN suck and it makes the project worse. Einsof (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Gatekeeping is very anti-wikipedia. You should be able to be discussed and listened to regardless of if you have 100k edits or 100. The content of the argument, not whos making it, is what matters. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Was merely making it known that certain ITN crierias, policies, guidelines exist which go against the arguments and rationales put yet so forth. Editors being informed of this is only going to lead to better discussion and that isn't gatekeeping. If we are to WP:IGNOREALLRULES and precedent for this particular blurb the reasons should be extraordinary, so far I don't see any. If the rules are the problem, you can propose changes at the Talk page. Gotitbro (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think einsof was refering to the way the tone sounded. Its not a welcoming environment to new comers. I have no problem with the actual statements in your comment and think you make points (even if I think he deserves a blurb) but I found problem with the tone. If it was unintentional, I understand, I very accidentally often sound like im upset at someone when im not). Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support major international coverage rarely seen on mayoral elections. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Unusual for a mayoral election, but its coverage certainly warrants it for ITN Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I really don't know why we are actually discussing something so local and trivial, given that the similar election of a left-wing Muslim candidate in a slightly larger English-speaking city was a snow close in only 18 hours 2016 - see WP:In the news/Candidates/May 2016#[Closed] Mayor of London election. Why is this person more notable. Sadiq Khan was the first Muslim mayor a major western capital, with worldwide media coverage - and a snow close at ITN - this isn't very significant other than locally a decade later. I do feel that there are too many here who are very US-centric, and vote for the most trivial thing, in relative ignorance of how minor it is on a world scale. Is it one of 50 stories for a few hours on the front of an English-language version news website that's providing articles based on both their geolocation and interests - Yes. Will it be on the front page of the newspaper delivered today in Beijing, Ulan-Bator, or Rio de Janeiro - no. Nfitz (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the UK has a long history of socialism and left wing politics. The US does not for the most part. Mamdani being muslim is notable, but it's the socialist angle that makes this notable based on location. Notability is about context. It is and will be reported internationally tomorrow. None of the blurbs on the front page currently has or had any long term international coverage. Basetornado (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding this. I am certainly not americocentric and am not american. But I think this is notable enough. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    UK has a long history of socialism and left-wing politics @Basetornado? How is that a criteria. Good grief - he's a Democrat - his party is arguably more centre-right than centre-left by international standards. Let alone left-wing! And USA not socialist? With your government-owned airports and sports stadiums, and railways, and transit? This is entirely irrelevant. It's extremely local. No prejudice in relisting if ICE deports him next week. Nfitz (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He ran as a Socialist. That's the story! He's technically the Democrat candidate, but he ran as a Socialist. If he simply ran as a Democrat. I agree there is no story here. I'm not American. Socialism in the US is considered a dirty word. Regardless of how things actually get run. The criteria is that if someone ran as a Socialist in the UK, that's not a story, because it's reasonably common. It's not common in the US is the point. Think about it like this, if I hit a Kangaroo on the way to work, that's not notable. If someone in Slovakia did though, it is. That's not even me making up an example. That's something that made the news in Slovakia, because it's out of the ordinary and notable. Basetornado (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant in so many ways. age, immigration status, political positions, background, nyc is more popular than london, nyc economy and budget, etc... Cinaroot (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your response @Cinaroot makes no sense. Immigration status? All the candidates were US citizens. That is their immigration status. NYC is more popular than London - a) what on earth has that got to do with anything. b) you are kidding right - the numbers I'm seeing show London has about double the foreign tourists than New York City, and is larger. List of cities by international visitors shows that New York City didn't even make the list this year, which would put it below more popular cities like Mecca, Antalya, and Macau - however that's also immaterial to this discussion. 07:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant he is a immigrant. Cinaroot (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.osc.ny.gov/files/reports/pdf/report-04-2025.pdf
    New York City is a top global destination, and the tourism industry is a vital component of its economy. In 2019, the number of visitors to the City reached a record 66.6 million. However, the COVID-19 pandemic devastated this thriving industry, resulting in a 66.5 percent decline in visitors to 22.3 million in 2020. Since that sharp decline, the industry has been recovering. In 2023, the number of visitors reached 62.2 million, 6.6 percent below the 2019 level. Cinaroot (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i think im wrong. maybe they are including domestic and international Cinaroot (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since this is a local election & also per the points made by Ornithoptera. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is clearly today's top story as it's not only leading the international news media, it is also dominated the top read chart on Wikipedia with 5 of the 10 top slots. There are several big stories currently including Cheney's death, Ladd's death, the plane crash, the US government shutdown and California's proposition 50, but, on the evidence, the NYC Mayor seems the biggest of them. And one thing's for sure – Japanese baseball is not what people are wanting to read about now. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem Cinaroot (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet tomorrow - he will become no. 1 Cinaroot (talk) 07:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    he is no. 2 position Cinaroot (talk) 08:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Who’s no. 1? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per other editors comments, major international coverage. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Man becomes mayor of a city". Not a head of state or government. We don't do it for London or any other world city, theres no reason why this guy should get special treatment. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    By not a head of government I assume you mean head of a national government?–DMartin 18:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since this is unprecedented, and also per Einsof and Loytra, who sum up their reasoning well. —Fortuna, imperatrix 07:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think we should post results from local elections. Sadiq Khan became mayor of London in 2016, the first Muslim and the first from an ethnic minority. Ekrem İmamoğlu became a mayor of Istanbul in 2019, which was seen as a major blow to Erdoğan's presidency and the Turkish government. Elections of mayors of metropolitan cities setting firsts and causing major political implications happen regularly.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=2025-11-04&excludes=
    He is no. 2 on wikipedia today. Cinaroot (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very good argument why we shouldn't post him. Blurbs should link to articles so they can get more page views, not the other way around.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views are an irrelevant metric in terms of blurbworthiness. ~2025-31251-93 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per @Blooming.Lilith.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 08:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose A mayoral election is simply not a significant enough event for ITN, as evidenced by previous New York mayoral elections not making ITN in the past, let alone those of other sub-national offices worldwide. Other users have correctly pointed out that mayors recently elected in places such as London, Istanbul etc did not make ITN. I'd add that I don't recall seeing ITN nominations for de Blasio, Adams or any other NY mayor in recent memory; I appreciate Mamdani's win has importance in relation to the current state of American politics, but there are thousands of mayors and other sub-national leaders elected around the world every year who do not come anywhere close to making ITN. There's nothing remotely newsworthy about this mayoral election in particular for a non-American audience. Oppius Brutus 09:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Unprecedented national and international media coverage.GolsaGolsa (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose local elections are not ITNR nor ITN-worthy. Mamdani has been in the international news because he is Muslim, socialist and controversial, not because his position, his figure (and career) and the elections are globally and truly important and noteworthy. We would be setting a bad precedent that we would end up regretting. Are you willing to do that? This is an encyclopaedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Cool news, but it's a local election - not newsworthy enough for ITN. There are many cities around the world as big as NYC where the election makes international news (Sadiq Khan in London, for example.Turini2 (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support: The election of an idealistic democratic socialist is a massive contrast to the current extremely far right oligarchy in charge of the United States as a whole. David A (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Which remains as a single nation, out of hundreds. Why is this more notable than a bigger city, a capital at that, electing a Muslim mayor in the midst of all the right-wing anti-immigrant Brexit stuff in the UK? Nfitz (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose New York may be a significant city but this is still too US-centric. As others have said, we didn't do this for Sadiq Khan becoming Mayor of London, which is perhaps even more notable than this. — Czello (music) 09:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Local news. — hako9 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed posting Sadiq in 2016, despite the predictable media shitstorm of "Muslim becomes mayor of large multicultural city" it's still just local news. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Subnational news, too local. ~2025-31360-41 (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNSIGNIF advises against, in no uncertain terms, arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location. DecafPotato (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopened I don’t think it’s appropriate to close a discussion after less than 12 hours when it shows a significant amount of support.–DMartin 16:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was duly closed because there was a significant amount of oppose. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a slim (31/27) majority after only a few hours, I don’t think that warrants a snow close.–DMartin 18:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopening a discussion just because the outcome was not to everyone's liking is to prostitute ITN. It was open long enough for more than fifty users to express their opinions. Bad precedent. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What onj earth do you mean by 'prostitute'? How is allowing enough time for debate similar to a sex worker? GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a way of speaking, of defining a way of "distorting" something for some interest. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have gone with hijacking, but I agree with the point you are making. Dr Fell (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is significant in US national politics and has received international coverage. New York is one of the biggest and most culturally significant cities in the Anglosphere, if not the world. We posted the president of the Mormon church, and that affects less people. –DMartin 16:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose municipal politics. Sadiq Khan was the first muslim mayor of London and he wasn't posted; this one shouldn't be either. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Local/municipal news. Per NorthernFalcon, we didn't blurb Sadiq Khan and I doubt we'll blurb mayors with notable feats being elected in LA, Chicago, Toronto, Paris, etc. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Is this in the news in the United States? Kind of. It's being discussed as a potential major turning point for progressives (because NYC is one of the biggest cities). But for now, this is all WP:CRYSTAL. There are several reasons why this story is being floated around: 1) he is a self-described "democratic socialist", 2) he is a young (millenial) Muslim immigrant, and 3) he defeated Cuomo, a well known governor. Some local elections could end up being a major turning point in some countries politics, but this has not proven to be the case in the United States. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don’t think any mayoral election is globally topical enough to warrant being posted on the front page as anything other than a future “did you know?” blurb. After all, I don’t think even most midterm elections get posted, and those involve potential swings of control of Congress. Certainly interesting news locally, and will have ripples on the domestic news front in the US, but not seeing a need to have a blurb posted. Now, if a certain someone goes forward with a major undemocratic effort to prevent him from being seated, that’d be another story. RPH (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, we do typically post the U.S. midterms (though the 2022 ones were pulled on quality grounds). DecafPotato (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (see November 2018 and November 2022) DecafPotato (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (See also Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2014, which was posted, but not as ITNR. Memorable opposes include "lilliputian interest, and a purely parochial matter", "unless one of the Houses changes hands. This is of no relevance otherwise", "This is not notable internationally", etc. RGloucester argued some bangers in there! Howard the Duck (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason we've opposed many other US and other countries' city mayoral elections: not wide enough impact and coverage. For comparison, I'm sure we (rightly) rejected the London mayoral election a few years ago- which is a similar size and importance city to NYC. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose consistent ITN theshold of national election. -- KTC (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not even going to argue the fact that the mayor of NYC presides over 8.5 million people, which is orders of magnitude larger than many nations whose changes in head of state are ITN/R. This is in the news, which is what matters. It's a major story around the world, not just in New York or the US. Three of the top four stories on BBC News right now are about Zohran Mamdani, and I'm seeing articles from all over the place that aren't simply syndicated AP stories. Anyone who says "we only blurb X" or "we didn't blurb Y" isn't actually looking at the coverage. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Disagree with re-opening this in the first place, but an already-existing (slim) majority against at the time of closure (27–31 oppose) has now grown even more since re-opening (now 29–37 oppose). I don't see why this needed to be re-opened, nor do I see consensus to post emerging. The Kip (contribs) 18:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not just let the discussion run its course please? I don’t think there’s much a reason for early closure.–DMartin 18:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It had run its course - 58 votes more than dwarfs what the average ITN candidate gets, and those votes showed a clear lack of consensus to post. You re-opened it because you personally disagreed, and now there is a emerging weak consensus against posting, which the initial closure had already dealt with. The Kip (contribs) 19:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not vote counting, and I'm not so sure some opposes should be discounted in consensus weighting per WP:ITNATA: "Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this. Consensus to post isn't going to emerge here. Dr Fell (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion had absolutely not run its course, especially considering how many responses it's gotten since reopening. It was closed before most Americans were even awake.–DMartin 22:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (IAR). Very significant result with huge ramifications in arguably the most important city in the world. Davey2116 (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I wouldn't support creating a precedent of blurbing municipal elections, but I think we should do it in this one instance based on the global media coverage this election has gotten. Not every mayoral election will be front page news around the world. JehanV (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It's important to understand that ITNR lets us know that being a national election is sufficient criterion for inclusion here; it is not a necessary one. In principle, anything that's sufficiently prominently in the news is eligible for posting here, and we don't have a body of case law precedents. We do have a certain amount of custom and practice, but that's advisory rather than binding. And this story is very much in the news. It's not pure pop culture; it overtly relates to serious and far-reaching matters of politics affecting millions of people. As I've said before - I would support the posting of a sub-national election that was sufficiently momentous; I believe this one is, and so I support it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Major election result in arguably the most influential city in the world, receiving widespread global media coverage. I understand that a mayoral election with significant media coverage does not necessarily mean it should be in ITN, but with this particular election most people who visit the Wikipedia front page will probably be wondering why it's not there. Romanov loyalist (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Worldwide international coverage that goes far beyond that of comparable global cities (and NYC is arguably the most important) and high readership interest (WP:ITNPURPOSE). While national-level general elections are automatically eligible per ITNR, that does not mean that such a level is necessary. Opening the door to more municipal items being posted at ITN would do a lot for reducing systemic bias (most megacities are non-Western after all), but no one is ever going to nominate them if a massively covered election in the most populous city in the Western English-speaking world doesn't get posted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - This is a local election. A Mayoral race in a Democrat-majority city and the Democrat winning the election. He is not the first Muslim mayor of a large western city (London), nor is he the first socialist to become mayor in New York (Dinkins). There is nothing notable about it other than the obsession in the 24/7 news cycle. Nomination should have remained closed. ~2025-31564-02 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four mayors New York has had in the 21st century, two have been democrats and two republican. I don't know why everyone seems to see his win was a forgone conclusion. He won by .4 percentage points, this isn't the likely outcome.–DMartin 22:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mamdani won by just under 9 percentage points, last I checked on the NYT. I support this nom, but think you should get the numbers right. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ultimately, is just a mayoral election, although in a big city, neither a national nor even a state level office. If you want to post an item from the U.S. politics, the U.S. government shutdown, now the longest ever, is actually affecting many millions of people. Nsk92 (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is not even the most important story in US politics right now. (The shutdown is about to shut down a large swath of air travel.) NYC has had a socialist mayor before anyway. I just don't see the argument for posting without completely overhauling our standards. Bremps... 22:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose When Sadiq Khan was elected the first Muslim mayor of London (a city of comparable size) in 2016, this was the discussion at this noticeboard. I don't see much difference between the two. Black Kite (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, we would never post this for any other country, nor if the winner was conservative. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The winners politics is why this is notable and being reported heavily. Other countries mayoral elections have not received such heavy widespread coverage. Context matters. Basetornado (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Normally even the mayor of NYC isnt a big deal, but this has received an extremely large amount of coverage due to his being a fresh face "against" the establishment, open democratic socialist, Muslim in the city of 9/11, an embattled former Democrat governor as his main opponent, the disgraced incumbent mayor withdrawing, and the numerous controversies over Mamdani. Make of all this what you will, but this is an exceptional case. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the level of discussion and where things stand, there is zero chance that consensus to post this is going to develop. It's time lower the curtain and move on. (As of this comment the tally is 42 oppose/34 support.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 00:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A number of users have opposed because this is a "domestic issue", but WP:ITNCDONT #2 specifically says "Please do not... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country".–DMartin 01:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, this is not even related to a single country but a single city. Masem (t) 04:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But that’s not the spirit of the policy. Is it? Cinaroot (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its more a guideline but the point of ITN is to focus on stories that carry some weight at a larger scale, and local elections, even for a city the size of NYC, does not have that. Masem (t) 05:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not what i understand after reading [[WP:ITN]]
    - serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest.
    - with the more recent entries appearing first.
    [[WP:ITNPURPOSE]]
    • To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
    • quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
    • subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them
    • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource
    After reading Criteria and Arguments to avoid - i think editors don't follow it. Cinaroot (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are conveniently skipping over the significance criteria – which this election result does not meet and where consensus has established itself as against posting. Even dead horses deserve a break. Dr Fell (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all above. I don't think it matters how big or important NYC as we wouldn't post a blurb about a new mayor of London, nor a new mayor of Los Angeles, nor a new mayor or of Tokyo, nor a new mayor of Shanghai, nor a new mayor of Toronto, nor a new mayor of Dallas... hungry (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nfitz. Not unprecedented given the existence of David Dinkins who was an open DSA member during his mayorship of NYC, and we unanimously rejected blurbing Sadiq Khan depsite the very similar circumstances and sensational reporting around him at the time. DigitalIceAge (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vote of Khan was nowhere close to unianimous. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: But also add that Mamdani is the first Indian-American, first Ugandan-American, first Muslim, first millennial mayor of NYC.
Longewal (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't heading towards a blurb, but irrelevant trivia like that wouldn't be suitable for a hypothetical blurb. Dr Fell (talk) 08:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a matter of getting the right blurb. As a non-American, I hadn't appreciated that this was, in fact, a national election with lots of simultaneous contests across the country. I've suggested alt3 which gives this big picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alt3 for me is doing too much. The story is Mamdani. The other's wouldn't be posted otherwise, and I don't believe they need to be posted. The headlines have all been about Mamdani and New York alone, with the others footnotes effectively. Basetornado (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A massive spike in readership, so that Mamdani topics took the top 5 slots in yesterday's top read. It's not just the man himself, who got 3.8 million readers, but his wife, mother and father who are attracting lots of attention too. And then there's the election article.
  2. The next two articles in the top 10 are Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill who were big Democrat winners in other contests on the same day. Such results are generating coverage like A night of big wins for the Democrats and Democrats’ electoral sweep deals blow to Trump.
  3. Coverage indicating that Mamdani is seen as inspiring progressive politicians globally, as they contend with the populist right-wing parties inspired by Trump. For example, Liberal politicians outside US hail Zohran Mamdani victory in New York – Opposition figures in India and Uganda and progressives in UK and France applaud Democrat’s election as mayor.
So, the result is seen as not just some local election but the vanguard of a national and global revival of progressive politics. And our readership is very interested in reading about this. As there were multiple results, it is being seen as a national election in which the Democrats have got their mojo back. There's also some interesting coverage indicating that Trump wants Mamdani as his main opposition and so endorsed Cuomo tactically to actually help Mamdani. For example, Mamdani Is the Foil Trump Wants. The plot thickens...
Andrew🐉(talk) 07:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support – our hard-working editors have done a very impressive job on these articles, and this should be an obvious feature as per the four goals of the ITN project:
  • "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Which I suppose is proven to be helpful looking at the pagecounts;
  • "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." Our editors have done a great job!
  • "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them." Of interest to non-American readers who are not keeping track of American politics.
  • "To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource." Probably the weakest angle, as we post elections a lot. Might show that we have well-written articles on gubernational-level politics as well.
As for the "significance" criteria, I don't think it's hard to prove that this election in particular has been a headline for newspapers across the world. The length and depth of coverage has also been well established in the past months. I see no reason as per the ITN guidelines not to blurb these articles, and most arguments above fail to relate to those guidelines and the purpose of the project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:49, 6 November 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) Typhoon Kalmaegi

[edit]
Article: Typhoon Kalmaegi (2025) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Typhoon Kalmaegi leaves at least 85 people dead in the Philippines. (Post)
News source(s): [10] [11] (gives 46 deaths)
Credits:

 WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support when over Typhoon is ongoing. Let's post when we have a good idea of the scale of the loss of life and damage. Bremps... 00:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with alt blurb when over notable enough and with enough casualties, but wait until its over and we can make a better estimate for casualties Pencilceaser123 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dominik Duka

[edit]
Article: Dominik Duka (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://english.radio.cz/czech-cardinal-dominik-duka-dies-82-8867773
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: Influential Czech Cardinal. Article seems ok, happy to work on any issues --> Newklear007 (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. He's got quite a substantial article for a Cardinal.
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:52, 4 November 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=1321640877"