In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

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.

Friedrich Merz In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU, led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag. Archaeologists announce that the empty tomb Wadi C-4 near Luxor, Egypt, was that of the pharaoh Thutmose II. At the British Academy Film Awards, Conclave wins four awards, including Best Film. Mahamoud Ali Youssouf is elected chairman of the African Union Commission. President of Romania Klaus Iohannis resigns from office, and is succeeded by Ilie Bolojan in an acting capacity. Ongoing: M23 campaign Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Gene Hackman Jeong Su-il Michelle Trachtenberg Abdullah Al Noman Ricardo Kanji Keith Slater Nominate an article

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

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.

Article: 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ An agreement to provide developing countries with $200 billion a year by 2030 is reached at the extended session of the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference. ()
News source(s): The Independent, The Guardian, Avvenire
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Oltrepier (talk · )
• Created by Chidgk1 (talk · )
• Updated by Cosmicseeds (talk · )

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Definitely less relevant than... well, whatever has just happened over at the White House, but still, this agreement couldn't have been less taken for granted, especially since negotiations had already broken up back in November. Yet, this conference has ended on a somewhat positive note, and since we usually report on the better known COPs, I think it would be nice to cover this event, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article looks great and we could definitely use some positive news. NewishIdeas (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW close, WP:NTRUMP. Not everything Trump does is notable, this is certainly an example. (non-admin closure)   Jalapeño   (c) 23:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: 2025 Trump–Zelenskyy meeting (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ Trump berates Zelenskyy for not agreeing to his mineral deal to surrender Ukrainian national resources to the US ()
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

• Nominated by Udder1882 (talk · )

 Udder1882 (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, SNOW close - WP:NTRUMP. Not an ITN-worthy development. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know about the blurb, but this is definitely IN THE NEWS worldwide

Oppose - Not significant. E_F⁵ 21:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ITNCDONT Udder1882 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Udder1882, I clearly voiced my reason. This isn't significant enough on a world scale to post. — E_F⁵ 21:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    fair point. I think this is significant enough, namely because it's on the front pages of newspapers across the world and this place is supposed to be showing off what's in the news worldwide Udder1882 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose WP:NTRUMP, editorialized blurb, article isn't in front-page shape. Estreyeria (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not a native speaker, feel free to come up with a better blurb, i didnt mean for it to sound non neutral thats just how it came out -------- Udder1882 (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and snow close this nomination goes nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is widely-reported, nonroutine, unexpected, and earth-shattering with existential implications. On top of that, it's the first time we've seen a major world leader not just sit there and smile, but to call out obvious big lies and US bullying. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 28 February 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.

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)

WP:SNOW close, subnational election. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: 2025 Ontario general election (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ A general election is held in Ontario, with the Progressive Conservative Party winning a majority of seats. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ In the 2025 Ontario general election, the centre-right Progressive Conservatives win a majority of seats.
Alternative blurb II: ​ An election is held in Ontario, with the Progressive Conservative party winning a majority for the third consecutive time.
News source(s): CBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Pnc4k (talk · )

 pancake (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - not a national election, probably not notable enough for an ITN spot. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. ITN has consistently declined to post sub-national elections, for good reasons. I see no reason to make an exception in this case. The article is mostly tables, with no prose on the outcome, so wouldn't be of sufficient quality anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - sub-national election with little change to the status quo. Departure– (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - are you trolling us User:Pnc4k? Particularly given the result is very similar to the last two elections. This is an absolutely nothing story - and so obviously not ITN that I have WP:CIR concerns. Even in Canada (where I voted yesterday in this election) this local story has the same prominence as Mummy Pig is pregnant. I'd argue that Mummy Pig is pregnant is more ITN, as it's getting international coverage. And even then, you missed the most significant international aspect of the election - that the right-wing was re-elected on a platform of attacking the nuttery in the USA. Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright alright, let's remember WP:AGF and WP:NOBITING. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose regional election. Scuba 18:56, 28 February 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.

Article: Boris Spassky (talk · history · )
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Russian chess player and former World Chess Champion Boris Spassky (pictured) dies at the age of 88. ()
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

• Nominated by Fahads1982 (talk · )

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.

 Fahads1982^talk/contrib 22:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Incredible chess player, deserves a blurb even 70.107.88.211 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how ITN works, but this definitely deserves a blurb. His impact in the chess world was significant, there's even a variation named after him. This is all over the news. Sad. dxneo (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb on notability'. Absolutely transformative in his field as Boris_Spassky#Legacy briefly describes. Additionally, the 1972 Championship match against Fischer was important not to chess players, but a major symbol of US-USSR competition. Sincerely, Dilettante 23:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb as he was transformative figure in chess with great legacy, one of only seven living former undisputed World Chess Champions at the time of his death in a time span of more than 50 years and a household name far beyond chess. All this is well-documented in the “Legacy” section.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, Support blurb, legacy is properly demonstrated why he was a major figure in chess. However one quality issue is the unsourced list of notable games at the bottom. I know some of these are discussed in the body, so I'd suggest these be converted into context appropriate links using the external media template. Second, while I know outlining chess moves is that common in discussing the game, the amount of detail this is given is sorta eye-blurring particularly in the legacy section. I don't know how much those are needed and minimization will greatly help the topic. Masem (t) 23:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding that the Para in the Legacy sect ion with the chess moves is unsourced. I assume this can be easily fixed but that's needed to be fixed along with a couple other points there. — Masem (t) 00:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix article first, then support on notability Spassky was an incredible chess player, even excluding the infamous 1972 WCC: note that back in 2008 when Bobby Fischer died, he was placed on ITN as a blurb (though of course 2008 was 17 years ago at this point). Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 23:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Notability is easily demonstrable. @Masem: I agree with the games list—their external links could just be turned into citations, for example—but I strongly recommend keeping the chess move notation and other details currently in the article. People uninterested in chess can easily gloss over them, while being easily available for anyone who actually needs it. Yo.dazo (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, not ready for RD. Needs some quality improvements, including some cn tags. His life is the main story, which meets criteria for RD and not for a blurb, regardless of his significance. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're dealing with a major figure: he was Fischer's opponent in World Chess Championship 1972, which is almost legendary both in chess and in Cold War history (I know we should avoid puffery, but still.) Yo.dazo (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I interpret the major figure qualifier with a higher degree of significance -- e.g. Elizabeth II, I'm on the side of only using this provision for blurbing those for whom a detailed "Death of X" article is present or soon will be, and for whom a high degree of information surrounding the death/state funeral is widely published. I understand if consensus falls the other way, but this'll stay my vote. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 00:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Major field is based on the field the person was in, so that we're not trying to compare the achievements of an athlete or actor to a world leader, for instance. Masem (t) 00:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard is "Thatcher or Mandela stature". That applies whatever field you're in. Chess is quite a niche topic so it's clearly harder for someone in that arena to be considered than a world leader or a major leading actor.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no such standard on Wikipedia, and it's mostly used by editors who run out of arguments. In first place, it's impossible to compare people from different fields, so people should be considered on the grounds of their contributions to the respective field. Furthermore, chess is all but a 'niche topic' as more than 70% of the adult population in the US, UK, India, Germany and Russia has played chess at some point in their lives (UN).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning against blurb. Yes, he was world champion for a time, but he's not generally in the conversation for being the greatest ever. Kasparov, Fischer, Carlsen, Karpov, Capablanca, Morphy et al would usually be considered more transformative. I feel like in chess he's a big name, but not so much outside of it or so influential to merit a word. I can see why some think he should have one though.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being the world champion isn't the only reason. His impact was significant, and to say he isn't big outside chess isn't entirely true as he was portrayed as the main antagonist in the Bobby Fischer-center film, Pawn Sacrifice. Even non-champions like Hikaru Nakamura made a significant change in the world of chess. Maybe I notice such things because I follow chess, but I do see where you are coming from. dxneo (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your observation that he's not a big name outside of chess is outright wrong. His name alongside Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov has become synonymous with chess for a layman in the last decades of the 20th century. The reason for that is perhaps the politics behind the World Chess Championship 1972, but it's completely irrelevant at this point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per above, he was an extremely important chess player. His match with Fischer was one of the most important of all time, and he was of course champion. Wait on Quality as the article is horribly cited. --SpectralIon 02:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb - one of the most famous chess players of all time. Wait/temporary oppose posting per quality concerns. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb on notability. However, the citation quality/presence in the article needs to be improved before posting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also support a blurb due to the subject's significance. I think the "life is the main story" test doesn't work very well here – at some point the person is so significant that even if they don't die in a bizarre way they deserve a blurb. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He's not remotely "so significant" though, he's just a run-of-the-mill super grandmaster who happened to home the championship for three years. Similar to Vladimir Kramnik, Vishy Anand and Ding Liren. Are all those going to be blurbed? It seems like the only reason this is being considered is because he was the opponent in the match against Fischer and there's been so much said and written about that over the years. But that's not a reflection on Spassky himself. Don't get me wrong, he was a great player, but not transformative any more than Gene Hackman was in the acting sphere.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not vital Famous mainly for his matches with Fischer, he's not among the twelve chess players graded as vital. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the vital article project purposely caps the number of articles they consider vital, this should not be taken as a metric at all in evaluating RD blurbs. — Masem (t) 15:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:VITAL project has a system of levels and the 10,000 level 5's seem far more systematic, comprehensive and encyclopedic than ITN's incoherent selections. Because ITN's blurb discussions are ad hoc and sui generis, they are inconsistent and incomprehensible. Spassky seems to be getting more support here than Hackman because some chess fans have turned up to vote for him and you see exactly the same sort of lobbying for footballers, rock stars and other fan favourites. But because WP:VITAL is systematic, it provides a more objective rating in which all chess players have been considered and Spassky hasn't made the grade whereas Hackman has been considered to be level 5 vital when compared with his peers. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. In Russian Wikipedia they have already published on the main page at 7 o'clock in the morning. Also Boris Spassky was the opponent of legendary Robert James Fischer in the Match of the Century. K. M. Skylark (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb, per above, however the article is lacking a lot of citations and should be improved before posting. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Highest title in arguably the second most popular sports/game in the world? Remember there's only been 8 world champs (ignoring pre-FIDE stuff) in the entirety of the XXth century and only 17 (if i've counted right) overall Udder1882 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reminder Before this can be posted either as blurb or RD, please resolve the various [citation needed] tags throughout the article first. – robertsky (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: British quizzer and TV personality  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Article is too stubby and has quite a few uncited statements. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 20:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: First woman to appear on television in Nigeria. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Stubby article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 22:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Gene Hackman (talk · history · )
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American actor Gene Hackman (pictured) dies at the age of 95 ()
Alternative blurb: ​ American actor Gene Hackman (pictured) is found dead alongside his wife in New Mexico at the age of 95
News source(s): BBC Santa Fe New Mexican
Credits:

• Nominated by Aydoh8 (talk · )
• Updated by Mezzanine96 (talk · )

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: Has only 1 CN tag. Aydoh8^[contribs] 08:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• support blurb two oscars Fdfexoex (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We have List of actors with two or more Academy Awards in acting categories. How many of the actors there who are still alive would we blurb? I could make rationales for Streep, Nicholson, Day-Lewis, De Niro, Fonda, Hoffman, Hanks and Caine; I'd struggle with the rest. Black Kite (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hackman is one of those. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you could come up with a rationale, but Black Kite couldn't, and that's the rationale of their note here. Departure– (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One of the greatest American actors of all time [2] plus clear case where death is the story that is in world news and literally every website makes that proposition for blurb. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality. Great deal of unsourced material at present. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD (when finished) Being worked on by a number of peeps as we speak, I don't think the article is in too bad shape. R.I.P. Govvy (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. A great actor no doubt, but merely winning Oscars isn't sufficient bar to blurb, there would be too many if we went down that route. There may be something unusual about the deaths given that his wife and dog died too, but I'd say unless it was a murder I wouldn't blurb it on that basis either. Quality has a long way to go for RD too.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd argue even if it's accidental in terms of CO poisoning or something like that, it's still a bit rare and could warrant a blurb, especially to happen to someone like a two-time Oscar winner. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean yes, there's all that, but death blurbs are supposed to be rare and only for those figures whose death and funeral might warrant an article in its own right. I've long thought we should have the option of "sticky" RDs which sit at the front for a couple of days outside of the usual merry-go-round, with the option of a separate pic too, to cover these sort of in-between cases where the person's paticularly famous but an an outright blurb isn't warranted. French Wikipedia has an optional second photo slot for RDs.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But still death is the story here, ir satisfies criterion. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BilboBeggins: @Amakuru: NYT report finding scattered pills by wife’s body and authorities now believe the death might be suspicious. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Not only his he a two-time Oscar winner and I'd argue significant in his field along with having some significant credits in many well known (and I'd argue) historical films, the circumstances of his death (found dead with his wife and dog at the same time; though no foul play is suspected) may also be another reason to consider a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• His Oscars were Best Supporting Actor in 1992 and Best Actor in 1971. He hasn't, even arguably, been at the top of his field for more than half a century. No blurb. Don't be ridiculous. —Cryptic 10:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  32 is "more than 50"...? Anyway, regardless of when he was at the top, the simple fact is he was. And adding Trachtenberg while at the same time omitting Hackman, that is "ridiculous". - \\'cԼF 18:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, that's my sentiment. Everyone thinks "I've heard of that guy" and immediately reaches for the "Blurb" button. But that's not how it's supposed to work. If Kirk Douglas and Vera Lynn don't fit in the blurb bucket then neither does Hackman.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was wrong not to blurb them, If you use that argument then we can mention Dilip Kumar, Betty White, Fillipino actress, Indian singer Lata Mangeshkar, Shane Warne, O. J. Simpson. If they were blurbed so should be Hackman. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I believe Lynn and Douglas should have been blurbed (along with others like Havilland). I should clarify that Shane Warne was posted because of the nature of his death besides notability and there was wide agreement among sources and editors that both Kumar and Mangeshkar met the blurb criteria of being transformative and on the top of their field. Gloria Romero's blurb was pulled and I disagree with the postings of White and Simpson (as did many at the time and continue to do so). Gotitbro (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've long argued that an objective measure for a blurb where the death isn't usual, is a legacy or impact section backed by several RSes that explain how said person was a major or great figure in their field, which avoids the bulk of the hand waving and frankly OR claims of importance. Using this standard aligns with those in Gotitbro's comment (eg we would have likely Lynn but not White) Masem (t) 21:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "He hasn't, even arguably, been at the top of his field for more than half a century" - why do you say that? He was still top actor in 90s and 2000s, with lead roles in The Firm, Get Shorty, Crimson Tide, The Replacements, Enemy of the State, Behind Enemy Lines, Royal Tenenbaums. He had lead roles in films that are among best known in 70s, 80s, 90s and maybe even 2000s. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He won a Golden Globe for The Royal Tenenbaums. BD2412 T 23:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the leaning argument here is the circumstances of his death. NYT report finding scattered pills by wife’s body and authorities now believe the death might be suspicious. If true that this might be a murder-suicide scenario then I’d argue this death is quite Blue worthy since how often do we have a murder-suicide involving an Academy Award winning actor? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb The person and circunstances of his death are relevant. ArionStar (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality, andSupport RD, Oppose blurb. Famous? Yes. Top of his field? Not really. Transformative? No. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: Then look at the blurb argument from the other angle. NYT report finding scattered pills by wife’s body and authorities now believe the death might be suspicious. If it’s foul play/murder-suicide, I think that is a bit blurb worthy considering how rare and a bit odd that now there’s a story about a two-time 95 year old Oscar winner being the potential victim of a murder-suicide. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TDKR Chicago 101: That might be a reason to edge more towards a blurb ... but we don't know anything yet. Black Kite (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  CNN is saying we might not have a full answer for several weeks to the cause of death. We know they are treating the death as suspicious, but that only is a procedural aspects - besides more extensive testing of the bodies, they're also doing a more thorough investigation of the house, but its still possible that the end result could be something simply related to old age rather than foul play or suicide. Masem (t) 13:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait regarding blurb. If this is just a death from natural causes or something like that then we shouldn't blurb, if it turns out it's something like a murder-suicide then we should consider it. We simply don't have enough information at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb on basis of the claim of being a great/major figure. Nothing in the article indicates how he had a significant legacy or impact on Hollywood. However, the concerns on the manner of death may be reasonable (officially don't think it was foul play, I read the situation as being something like CO poisoning and rather common manner of death). Oppose RD due to lack of sourcing in filmography section. --Masem (t) 13:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NYT report finding scattered pills by wife’s body and authorities now believe the death might be suspicious. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't propose either of the blurbs, only the RD. Thought I'd just clear that up. Aydoh8^[contribs] 13:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. While he's a great actor, I think he falls short ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not basing my position on who was or wasn't posted in the past or whether he was transformative/influential or whatever term you want to invent. My concern is that Hackman isn't on the same tier as his contemporaries like De Niro, Eastwood or Pacino. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: NYT report finding scattered pills by wife’s body and authorities now believe the death might be suspicious. Would you consider a blurb if this is a case of murder-suicide? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, but I can also see scenarios where it still wouldn't be a murder-suicide. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. One of the best known actors. Even Russian sources list him as one of the greatest actors of XX century [3]. And there could be also arguments for death as the story. But in that case we would need to name his wife, too. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. On one hand, that his Oscar wins were a half-century ago - should not be an impediment to a blurb. On the other hand - really - Gene Hackman? I don't think 40 years ago, that anyone would have thought that this is someone we'd consider in such a way. And how didn't we blurb Kirk Douglas and Vera Lynn? Good grief ... if Lynn doesn't pass the test, who does? Nfitz (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  His second Oscar win was not 50 years ago, 30 years. Then he won Golden Globe in 2000s. He was nominated for SAG twice, winning once, in 90s. Even in terms of awards only, he was top actor still in 90s and 2000s.

  But we did blurb Sidnez Poitier who won one Oscar. How is Gene Hackman less influential then Sidney Poitier? Poitier was nominated for two Oscars, and Hackman for five, they both won Silver Bear. Poitier won 2 Golden Globes and honorary award and Hackman won 3 Globes and honorary award.

  " I don't think 40 years ago, that anyone would have thought that this is someone we'd consider in such a way." On the contrary, 40 years ago he was top star, having appeared in previous decade in Conversation, French Connection, Poseidon Adventure, Superman. The other thing that there was no Wikipedia and no Internet. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please tell me you didn't just say "How is Gene Hackman less influential then Sidney Poitier?" ... oh, you did. Good grief. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sidney Poitier had only 4 roles in 34 years before his death, and only one was lead role, in not a famous movie. Hackman was still top actor in 90s. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Poitier was the first Black actor to win Best Actor and broke down a massive amount of barriers for Black actors in Hollywood. He had a far greater impact on cinema than just simply leading roles and award wins. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lynn failed because of a combination of mostly American "never heard of her" which should have been discounted on the spot but weren't, but also a number of "Not on the Thatcher/Mandela level" and pointing out that we recently hadn't blurbed Little Richard (which was also unforgivable IMO). Some comments that she wasn't important enough or transformative were quite funny, though. The one that amazed me was Douglas. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on notability. I definitely think ITN should be much more forgiving towards life-as-a-story deaths of major figures, but Gene Hackman definitely isn't among those I'd want to see posted. Departure– (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blub - American Celebrity dies should be RD not ITN. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NYT report finding scattered pills by wife’s body and authorities now believe the death might be suspicious. I think if the death wasn’t natural and if it’s indeed foul play, surely that would warrant a blurb. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for RD for the usual reason. Oppose blurb for consistency. Although I disagree with the extremely high bar we seem to have adopted, the fact remains that the community has routinely refused to blurb the passing of Hollywood legends of similar or higher stature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support RD based on improved referencing. I may reconsider my oppose to a blurb in the unlikely event this turns into a murder case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD once sourcing issues are solved, mostly at the television and theater sections. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD if Michelle Trachtenberg is on the RD list, definitely should have Gene Hackman who is arguably more well known. --viridianwindow (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent point. @Black Kite:, what's the deal with Trachtenberg being on there anyway? - \\'cԼF 18:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Recent Deaths standards, 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.

  Once her article met quality standards, she was eligible for the list. The same will apply to Hackman. Determinations are not based on notability but on article quality, including citations and updates around the death. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thewolfchild Well exactly. When I commented originally, Hackman's article didn't meet ITNRD. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the reply. I see he is now listed and so I'm not looking to further debate how he got there, and when, compared to who, because of what, etc., etc. This was my first time addressing a Main Page issue, and will likely be the last. And with that, I believe another episode of Wikipedia Cat Rodeo is at a close. Cheers - \\'cԼF 03:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb if death is non-natural. Oppose blurb, support RD otherwise. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, needs work for RD. Theater and TV filmography are uncited. Article is otherwise in good shape. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 17:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now support RD (I worked on said citations). ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 19:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD a... "blurb", I suppose? (Does that mean his name is added to the list of recent deaths in the In The News section for a day or two?) I really can't believe his name is not there, nor can I believe there is an actual dispute here about adding him. Of course you add him. All the major news outlets are reporting his death, so why is WP at odds with that? Most days when I look there, that little section is filled with a bunch of people named Joe or Jane, people I bet the majority of readers looking at that section never heard of. Well, people have heard of Hackman, they're seen his movies, his performances on stage, and they've read his books. He served his country as a Marine then went on to become one of the best at his craft. He is worthy of a... "blurb". a notice in RD - \\'cԼF 18:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity for some of the above new to ITN editors, "blurb" means that they get a bulleted "news headline" with a report of their death. "American actor Gene Hackman (pictured) dies at the age of 95." Every biographical article can be added to the list of recent deaths, provided they meet quality standards. The discussion for RD is only based on if the article meets quality standards. Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) What you're referring to is not a "blurb" but an "RD". The blurb would be a full line item up top amongst the other headlines, whereas RD is the list at the bottom, which is automatic once the quality is met. Unfortunately it isn't though, which is why He can't be listed in either location yet, and perhaps never will unless people work hard to eliminate the issues in the article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you both. Now I see why I kept getting edit conflicts when trying to correct that. - \\'cԼF 18:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb per arguments above, weak support RD - there's still a handful of uncited items in the filmography, but for the most part the article is good to go. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography now fully cited. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted as RD – robertsky (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Blurb Famous but not transformative/era-defining for American cinema. Should the death turn out to be a murder-suicide or similar, I support blurbing. Sincerely, Dilettante 22:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support RD, the article is satisfactory and based on the developing news, featuring in RD is a useful MP link while we wait before posting blurb for any conclusion on what a blurb would have to say. While I am still personally on the side of opposing blurbs for deaths where the death is not the story (i.e. we have RD for a reason), I also acknowledge that most users see blurbs as a recognition of outstanding lives and in my opinion, Hackman would meet the criteria such users set for having a blurb. I suppose that would make me a "support blurb if we have to" - however, I do not feel we should yet post a blurb until we know if it would be a "recognition of outstanding life" or "unusual death is the story". So wait, until there's further clarity from whoever is investigating - obviously all the details won't come soon but I expect it won't take longer than a week for them to say whether it's natural or foul play. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb There are several good reasons to blurb this including:

1. It's in the news in a big way, being all over the front pages of newspapers in the UK for example
2. The death is the story as it seems he and his wife were dead for days before being discovered
3. The subject was top of his field with two Oscars and an entire page devoted to his other awards
4. The topic is of huge interest to our readership with over 3 million of them reading the article on the news. Few deaths attract this level of attention.
5. The alternative is the bottom blurb about the Romanian PM. We've been running that for two weeks now and so it's well overdue for replacement as few people are reading it now – about three orders of magnitude less than Hackman. One of ITN's objectives is to "emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource". Persisting with such a stale story does the opposite, giving the impression that ITN is broken and not staying fresh.
6. The article is of reasonably good quality with lots of content, over 100 citations and graded as vital.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+1. ArionStar (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb He had enough critical & commercial success to merit a blurb. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is completely irrelevant. Point 2 is directly relevant, but my "wait" recommendation from above still stands - we don't know enough yet. Point 3 is arguable (and regularly argued!) - some people see it is relevant, others do not with several people suggesting that if there isn't scope for an article about the death and/or reactions to the death (social media platitudes do not count) then there shouldn't be a death blurb. Everything else has consensus (in some cases very strong consensus) that they are not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Posting Image Putting up a photo seems reasonable given that his death is under active investigation and the level of coverage this is all getting. Still opposed to a blurb though, unless this is ruled a homicide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the cause of death becomes clearer. Support Altblurb if the death is found to be suspicious, and Oppose blurb if the death is found to be natural. --SpectralIon 18:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently the results may take several weeks, by which time of course this would be stale. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If it takes too long then yeah I would continue to oppose. At least his RD is already posted, so his death gets some recognition. SpectralIon 21:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If the results make the news when they are released, then we can consider a blurb at that time. I can't speak for everyone of course, but I don't see the RD posting as meaning we would be posting the same story twice (not quite the same but WP:ITNRD makes it clear that someone can have a blurb when they disappear and then later have an RD entry when they are declared dead in absentia, and that seems comparable to me). The only restriction I'm aware of is that the same person cannot have a blurb and an RD entry at the same time. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb The fact that a famous person dies in strange circumstances is far from being a reason to have a blurb, not even if a violent death is proven. This is not a news portal, nor is it a scandal magazine. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean, Wikipedia ≠ TMZ? ArionStar (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Might need some copyediting Fahads1982^talk/contrib 18:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The article seems adequate enough. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 22:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the usual reason of a mostly-uncited filmography. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Now fully cited. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 20:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Notable death, highly covered in international news. --CommanderShepardX (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CommanderShepardX 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't need your opinion on the interpretation or classification of ITN. CommanderShepardX (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That literally is ITN's guideline, not my opinion. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think The Kip is trying to be snarky; your comment is confusing because it is unclear what you are "supporting". Notability and internationality of coverage is simply not a consideration for whether an article is suitable for RD - that is only a criterion for a blurb. However, this nomination is not for a blurb, and nobody has yet explicitly proposed a blurb. So, are you suggesting she should have a blurb in addition to RD, or did you just not realize that RD noms are only about article quality? Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs work This article will be getting lots of readers regardless of what ITN does – it's had over 100K in the last month and that's before this news. Those readers won't be looking for references for the filmography – that's a very low priority. They will be starting with the lead which currently doesn't even say that she's dead. It's the details of the death which are the priority because it was untimely and her illness/liver transplant is currently unclear. The NYT published a short report just 37 minutes ago which says that "A full obituary will follow." We should follow their lead as we want a good respectable source like this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]
• Oppose for now. As the top editor of the page in terms of authorship, I do not believe it has reached quality standards expected of articles featured on the main page. As previously stated, much of the filmography is uncited, and some statements in the main prose too. I've been trying to help on the citations bit, however the high number of edits every minute makes this really hard. I'm going to postpone my editing attempts until tomorrow so the page can hopefully cool down; then, we can work on the citations and prose, and I'm sure the article will be good to go :) jolielover♥talk 19:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article has improved significantly, all sourced up, adequate for main page jolielover♥talk 02:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now - quality concerns. Getting closer to adequate quality, though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, article is in good shape, not perfect, but certainly acceptable. –DMartin 19:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Notable, and article is not in a bad shape. It is definitely better than some of other, current RD article's quality. 51.154.145.205 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. All CN tags have been addressed; the article is not perfect (still needs more info on her death, but that is forthcoming). However it is well above the typical minimum threshold which we require for RD. Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now (until the page stabilizes a bit). We are getting a lot of vandalism right now. If we're able to get to a stable version soon enough, it is well-cited and contains the bones of being ready, save for the aforementioned unconstructive edits. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per FlipandFlopped. Steam5 (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and marked ready. there are no outstanding tags, no glaring errors or omissions (afaict there is no more information about her death that has been made public). The article is semi-protected which seems to have dealt with the vandalism, so no reason not to post (I'd do it myself if I were more awake). Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: I am holding off posting this until at least 4 hours from now as the current bunch of RDs are on there for less than 12 hours. – robertsky (talk) 04:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 11:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former North Korean spy, NK defector, one of leading West Asia experts in South Korea Didgogns (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Biographical sections are barely longer than a stub, and the Writings and Translations sections are wholly uncited. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A North Korean spy who became an Arabic and Silk Road expert and posed as a Filipino in the Middle East (aka Muhammad Kansu); defected to South Korea and furthered his research on the Silk Road. Quite a story, the lead simply does not do a good job at all. Gotitbro (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support the lead and article have been expanded. This is an interesting story about a person. Rynoip (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The issues mentioned in the first comment seem to have been cleaned up, the article seems well cited and sourced. Seems fine to me to run. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posted– robertsky (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Influential Hungarian piano teacher at the Franz Liszt Academy of Music of a generation of students. The article was a stub with a long lists of students. Only the students with articles remained, still many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. The article still needs some work done. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 22:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Needs references for list of works and awards. Will try to work on this. Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per nom on the works list - bio isn't much longer than a stub either. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The works list now has a lot of references, but isn't fully done yet. Natg 19 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 EUPBR (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak support I don't technically see anything wrong, but I'm a little concerned how much the article seemingly relies on the first source. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Entry available here in the Internet Archive. The publishing house is associated with Jagiellonian University (per [5]) and while I don't speak Polish it seems fine at a glance. Curbon7 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 ArionStar (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability, oppose on article quality Personisinsterest (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• While we have generally avoided posting military craft disasters (such accidents being seen as part of the risk inherent in their jobs), the claim that this also carried several high-ranking officials of the Sudanese military forces brings that beyond just a military crash. But that all needs to be confirmed, along with article expansion. --Masem (t) 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for more details. We don't know who was aboard or which type of aircraft was involved (only that it was made by Antonov), let alone what might have caused the crash. 46 deaths is a lot even for a military crash, but the article needs more information to properly assess the significance. Modest Genius ^talk 15:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak support. The article is in better shape now and has more information. This seems borderline on notability, but is good enough to post. Modest Genius ^talk 11:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support, but oppose on quality Article needs more sources to make a quality article. INeedSupport ^:3 17:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - on quality in general, given the article's short length, and on notability overall, per Masem's reasoning. One high-ranking military official among the dead does not elevate this beyond the significance of other military accidents and incidents. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Damn thing crashed into a residential neighborhood, killing 29 and injuring 10. All people on board were fatalities. So it's not just a military crash, and it wasn't even directly tied to the conflict, it's a civilian disaster. The article needs work and needs expansion though. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support on notability, neutral on quality. Large amount of civilian casualties, article is short but has no glaring problems. –DMartin 19:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a few days, conditional support for more info. Article is slightly stubby for now but I can work with that. Support on notability. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can't find the source that states it was an AN-26. Am I just blind? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe here... can't state how reliable this is as a source though Montezuma69 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; but as I've been updating/contributing to the article, I have not come across a definitive, independent and reliable source to say it was an Antonov An-26, other than on some aviation-specific websites that I cannot vouch for quality. Montezuma69 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You may be right. I have seen multiple articles calling it an Antonov, but not the specific An-26. Maybe change it for now? Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per dmartin969. Especially in light of us posting Med Jets Flight 056 it is somewhat settled precedent at ITN that crashing into a densely populated area and inflicting mass damage/casualties on the ground, enhances notability. This is especially true here - even if there weren't any high-profile military on board it is well-clear of our minimum threshold for blurb notability, IMHO. Flip^andFlopped ツ 21:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As someone who was against posting that as well, just because ITN makes a mistake once in a while doesn't mean it needs to double down on said mistake. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Observation 2012 Talodi Antonov An-26 crash was posted. ArionStar (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Over a decade ago. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And with similar notability and casualties, this should be a pretty arguable precedent.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "People died" is not a claim to significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It having several high-ranking officers on board, as well as it crashing in a residential neighbourhood, definitely are claims to significance.   Jalapeño   (c) 19:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ongoing covers this via the timeline entry. It doesn't seem big enough news to warrant more. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as a virtual stub. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Screenwriter and producer. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support, well-cited 675930s (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fahads1982^talk/contrib 20:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article seems to be fully-cited and length is enough. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 11:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: US Secret Service agent who tried to shield JFK in Dallas. Died on 02/21 but just announced. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The "Assassination of President Kennedy" is missing some sources. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. BTW, I'm not sure what the previous oppose !vote means, but it is not very relevant.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ianmacm: the IP is referring to how the #Assasination of President Kennedy section of the article is largely uncited. — Knightoftheswords 16:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. That section needs some work on refs. I've tagged it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Died on February 13 but was just announced today. The article is in rough shape.  ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 22:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Brazilian recorder player, conductor and academic teacher, first for decades in the Netherlands where historically informed performance began, and then for more decades spreading it in Brazil. The article was basically there but refs were missing or no longer working. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I added one CN tag, but the vast majority of the article is up to speed quality-wise. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I fixed it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 11:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American sports TV and radio broadcaster. Article needs some work. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Quite a few uncited statements throughout the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 22:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Needs a bit of work. Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Not huge but no issues ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 22:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment was meant for Slater's RD nom below ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Only one "vague" tag in the article, but otherwise looks good. NewishIdeas (talk) 00:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Life and career section could use more sources, there are two paragraphs uncited and two sentences that also should have one. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Looks fine. Natg 19 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good enough. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not huge but no issues ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 11:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Surprisingly well-cited. Natg 19 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Wow, yeah that’s a lot of sources for an article of that size ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 22:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreferenced date of birth. Schwede66 16:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: added references for DOB. Natg 19 (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Schwede66 20:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Roberta Flack (talk · history · )
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American singer Roberta Flack dies at the age of 88. ()
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

• Nominated by Muboshgu (talk · )
• Updated by Thriley (talk · ), Martinevans123 (talk · ), Jaguarnik (talk · ) and Proscribe (talk · )

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.

 – Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/wait For a couple years in the early 1970s, any song she touched turned to gold. And three went to #1 in US, "Killing Me Softly With His Song", "Feel Like Makin' Love", and "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face". Its also worth noting she produced several of her songs, very unusual for the time.
  However, article still needs some work, since its just been announced. TheCorriynial (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready yet, but looks promising. There are only six citation needed tags. Flibirigit (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marked as read. Thanks to everyone who worked on this! Flibirigit (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    How much more ready does it have to be? Or is there insufficient space? Perhaps those with shorter names stand a better chance. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Only one citation needed tag left for American Music Awards (but none of the linked articles have supporting sources). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if... we can find a better AMAs citation. I have added 2 citations (a video and a secondary source) for the one AMA win, but can't find anything re: AMA nominations.

~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:41, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could just mention her win and comment out the nominations/ take to Talk page? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do the AMA year articles have sources? Kingsif (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that it’s probably good enough/we can move the nominations out for now—you can count me a support ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 03:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support and Further update: I took the nominations off the page and added text concerning the AMA win at the top of the Accolades section. The only source used for the AMA year pages seems to be a bare link, which is now dead. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 03:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Let's get this on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying Support RD only. Although 3 #1s and back-to-back Grammy ROY is high acclaim. I think it is a bit short of blurb-level importance. She is some notches below Diana Ross, Taylor Swift or Katy Perry in terms of blurb eligibiility.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Added blurb. Moraljaya67 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb as the article clearly fails to demonstrate any extraordinary significance and impact. Otherwise good to go for RD.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Quality is sufficient. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, not a transformative figure. Support RD, the quality seems fine to me. Modest Genius ^talk 21:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Admins willing to post ITN: looks ready for posting. Natg 19 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Motown Encyclopedia (currently source 4) says that she was born in 1939, and that some sources erroneously state that she was born in 1937. There is a discussion about it on the talk page, too. I see no discussion about this potential uncertainty in the article. I note that the New York Times said that she was 88, which makes the year of birth 1937. Are we comfortable to leave things as they are, or should this uncertainty be added to the article? Schwede66 04:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both The New York Times and Motown Encyclopedia are seen as a WP:RS? But it might be useful to have a footnote, based on the Motown Encyclopedia content, that mentions some sources claiming 1937? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This issue seems like something to discuss on the article talk page, not an impediment to posting in RD. The ITN box doesn't mention the age or date of birth of RDs. Modest Genius ^talk 12:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, quite agree. Has been raised there (in 2014). Martinevans123 (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Schwede66: It seems to be footnoted now, which should be sufficient for ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD Sufficient breadth and sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as RD – Schwede66 20:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Article needs some work. Natg 19 (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Some chunks of the article need sourcing. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 German federal election (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union), led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union) wins the most seats in the Bundestag.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union) wins the most seats in the Bundestag, while the far-right AfD comes in second.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In the German federal election, the CDU/CSU (Union), led by Friedrich Merz (pictured), wins the most seats in the Bundestag, while the far-right AfD comes in second.
News source(s): Tagesschau, Al jazeera, DW, CNN, Ruters, the Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Haers6120 (talk · )

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: Federal election in Germany, with ARD/Infratest-dimap and ZDF exit polls project CDU/CSU wins most seats; I also include Merz in the original blurb, as unlike Scholz, Merz is also leader of the CDU. I also added a concise altblurb. Update: vote counting started. Haers6120 (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial opinion: I think we should mention the AfD getting the second most seats.

Yes we dont normally post runner ups, but a fascist party getting the second most seats not just in any European country but in Germany, in 2025, I think is a strong enough reason to get them into the blurb. Udder1882 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Alt II added, we will let community decides. Haers6120 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a consensus that AfD is Fascist. If we are to put it up it's because the AfD is the first new party in Germany to become Opposition since the Greens in the 90s, making this one of the most significant moments in modern German history 2A00:23C8:B00:AD01:CC1F:63C9:8B16:FA1F (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a precedent to mention this per se (the communists losing a provincial government in west bengal was posted), but runner ups are never mentioned.Sportsnut24 (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any mention of AfD, unless they join a coalition. If ITN's usual response to gay marriage in Europe stories is "all the rest of them did it years ago", then this is even less unusual. Depending on your personal definitions, parties in the same boat as AfD govern Italy, hold ministries in Finland, always come runner-up in France, won the most seats in Austria... What I like about ITN is the directness without the editorialising and fearmongering that newspapers have to do to survive. AfD is incredibly unlikely to form a coalition with the CDU, and even more unlikely to ever break the German political system that is built for plurality. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD were opposition in the 2017-2021 Bundestag This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for actual results, for obvious reasons. Weak oppose altblurb 2 because the only notable part of that for me is how it will affect the political firewall, which will only be certain once coalition talks are underway. Yo.dazo (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support It's been called now. Will also reiterate that I still think we should only include AfD in the blurb if they end up breaking the firewall. Yo.dazo (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until we get the actual results. It's known that people are often shy about telling pollsters they voted for the far right. Secretlondon (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - just watching live - not a single vote reported yet. Just polling. This should have been nominated. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait It takes no more than one or two days for the final result of a federal election in Germany to be announced. support blurb3 (mention friedrich merz and of AfD as runner-up, as it has become a People's Party). --Augustgeborener (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for final results and support mention of AfD as runner-up. --Alison (Crazytales) (talk; edits) 00:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for final results and support once all tags fixed Shadow4dark (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for final results and then support altblurb2 once they are in. The German far right's surge in suport has been a focal point within much of the global coverage of this election and is of monumental significance for the political future of Europe. Most of the headlines in reliable sources are including the AfD's second place-finish for precisely this reason; I think it is fair for ITN to mirror how the RS is reporting it. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb, as per Liechtenstein and Kosovo was posted. ArionStar (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait pending final results and support mentioning newsworthy AFD showing. TheSavageNorwegian 01:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb1 result is clear This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb2 The AfD's rise in support is a notable aspect of this election, and has been covered by news discussing the election. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for a coalition to form and then report on the election of a new chancellor. 675930s (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The final provisional result has now been announced. Gust Justice (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb per precedence and above arguments. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 04:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn’t it be mentioned that they still fell short of a majority. I’m not super familiar with the German system but I imagine it would be relevant. –DMartin 05:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  there has never been a single party in germany gaining 50 % of the votes - Union got once, in the 1957 elections, 50 % of the vote though. Augustgeborener (talk) 06:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume the poster meant the majority of the seats. Not a majority of the votes. The former is very significant, the latter not so much. Though how often the former happens I don't know ... doesn't seem common. Nfitz (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Change per dmartin969. I would prefer it say they won "a plurality of seats" instead of "the most seats" as that makes clear enough (in my opinion) that they did not win a majority. Since they operate on a parliamentary system, it's not just who wins the most seats leads government - they have to form a coalition with other parties. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree. 'Plurality' is a jargon term that is incredibly rare outside American English. 'Most seats' is better for WP:COMMONALITY. Modest Genius ^talk 12:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Secretlondon (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we want to write a simpler American English Wikipedia, perhaps we should use simple:Main Page. I don't see why regional English variants should be a concern. Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Plurality is still used in British English, it’s just a bit like academic jargon that people living in non-proportional electoral systems won’t be familiar with. If need be we can link to Plurality (voting) Kowal2701 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would think a link is fine. The problem with "most seats" is that it is ambiguous as to whether it refers to them winning the most seats out of all the parties involved, versus them having won most of the seats (i.e. a majority) themselves. Heck, even our article on the election itself uses the term plurality in the lead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to plurality per above. I agree that the current blurb is somewhat misleading, as it implies that the CDU/SDU 'won the election', when in fact, they arguably underperformed expectations and achieved only a narrow plurality relative to the far-right and far-left, who both made historic increases in their seat share. Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Plurality is both simpler and more descriptive. Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Admins willing to post ITN: looks like there is a consensus for "plurality". Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick search of our archives shows we have used the term plurality about four dozen times in ITN’s history when it comes to election blurbs, so I don’t think it should be an issue to continue to use it. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 22:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]