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.
Israel launches multiple airstrikes across cities in Iran, killing various nuclear scientists and military officials, including IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
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.
Israel kills at least 51 Palestinians in Gaza after Israeli tanks fired into a crowd trying to get humanitarian aid from trucks. At least fourteen other people were also killed in separate Israeli gunfire and airstrikes elsewhere in the exclave. (Reuters)
Israel says it has killed Major General Ali Shadmani, the most senior military commander in Iran who was appointed to his post four days ago. (The New York Times)
Russia launches a total of 440 drones and 32 missiles on Kyiv, Ukraine, damaging buildings and public facilities, killing 15 people and wounding dozens more. (BBC News)
Nominator's comments: Renominating this blurb change as both the deletion and move discussion have both been closed with consensus to merge the previous articles into this one, with nearly every source now calling this a war. Abu Isa 🇴🇲12:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iran says Israel struck a hospital in Kermanshah in western Iran. Video footage published by local platforms showed bloodstains, indicating casualties from the strike. (Al Jazeera)
Gary Hoy, a survivor of child sexual abuse at Kincora, resolves a legal action against the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Home Secretary with an undisclosed agreement. The legal action alleged that paedophile housemaster William McGrath was allowed to target children to gather information about the far-right paramilitary organization Tara. (RTÉ).
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support, article is well cited with not so much as an inline tag. The Israel-Iran section needs to be updated though with post-13 June events. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Way too broad an article, and it's debatable if the article's recent updates are up to Ongoing standards regarding size and frequency. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per DarkSide. I would support an ongoing on the Israel-Iran conflict presuming it continues, but the middle east is nearly always in some form of conflict. Right now, all of the other middle east nations appear to staying far out of this and seem to want to encourage ceasefire/peaceful talks. Masem (t) 04:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that there is nearly always a conflict, I would say that the situation surrounding Israel right now is at an all time high since 1947. I do agree that the article could probably be named better. — TheThomanski | t | c | 13:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominated article is not clearly named as its focus just seems to be Israel and its conflicts since the Hamas attack in 2023. There are other ongoing conflicts in the Middle East which it doesn't cover such as the Yemeni civil war (2014–present). To get a fuller picture, it might be better to more clearly surface the Portal:Current events which is currently obfuscated by the Ongoing title. The portal's daily incidents are presented within a nested hierarchy of relevant articles such as the Middle Eastern Crisis which provide contextual links. And it has useful sidebars such as the List of ongoing armed conflicts. With lots of space and structure, it's a comprehensive navigational aid and so we should encourage readers to explore it. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though the conflicts in Gaza and Iran are obviously linked they are also obviously separate in key ways. My personal view is that any linkages are in name only at this point. QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC) QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. Once it is clear it has become an ongoing conflict, nominate the Israel-Iran war article for ongoing alongside the Israel-Gaza article. FlipandFlopped㋡13:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least eight people are killed and dozens of others are injured in a shooting near an aid distribution site near Rafah, Gaza. Witnesses attribute the shooting to Israeli forces. (NPR)
At least six people are killed, 25 are swept away, and 32 others are injured, including six critically, when a bridge over a river collapses at a popular tourist destination in Kundamala, Pune, Maharashtra, India. (Al Arabiya)(CTV News)
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 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.
Oppose on quality the round summaries for the final two rounds especially are too short and the final round one has unsourced content. The ones for first two are right on the limit of long enough in my opinion. And that's before the usual annoyance of being way too detailed on the qualification process like every golf article seems to be. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Unfortunately, as per usual it seems with ITNR Golf Noms, the article is not adequate. The exemptions section is bizarrely formatted and there are empty date subsections within the Round Summaries portion. FlipandFlopped㋡14:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Nominator's comments: Proposing blurb change as this conflict is being referred to as a war between these two sovereign states, as per sources above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, this shouldn't be a new nomination for a blurb adjustment. Secondly, almost everything covered in the target article is also in the June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran page. It will be kept, but it's currently being held up in AFD largely for this very reason. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the looks of it also appears to be a POVFORK of the already blurbed article. With Israeli/Netanyahu POV war rationale quite prominent right in the lead para:
The war started on 13 June 2025 in a preemptive strike by Israel the day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that Iran had violated its nuclear nonprofilitation obligations. ... The Israeli attack took place the day after the end of the American 60 day deadline of nuclear negotiations. Israel declared the war was not against the Iranian people but the Iranian regime as well as the dismantling of the Nuclear program of Iran, which is purported by Israel to include nuclear weapons development.
Can you explain how, and which clause? That article seems to be about a different country, and doesn't mention nuclear weapons, which is what this is allegedly about. I'm not saying you are wrong; those Arbcom rulings always seem not clear, overly worded, vague, selectively enforced, and debatable. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close article is currently at AFD so ineligible for ITN at this time.If article is kept, then can be re-opened or re-nominated as appropriate. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close - it's at AfD, which at the moment is leaning to merge anyway. However, that could easily (unfortunately) change, and then this can be re-nominated. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question - this might be a contentious topic - but I don't know what it has to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict (other than perhaps Yemen joining in - but that's not mentioned in the blurb or this discussion). Iranians aren't Arabs, any more than British are German. Should this warning be removed, or replaced with one that makes sense, and isn't offensive to those being called Arabs? Nfitz (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close - this is a request to change the current blurb (which should be at WP:ERRORS), it is suggesting an article at AFD, and the sources are just journalistic outlets casually using the word "war", not about a declaration of war (beyond the missile attacks already on the front page). This should be speedily closed. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 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 needs updating 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.
oppose on quality This is one of the triple crown of motorsport, but i think it could be reworked with a picture blurb, and also specifying that it is at circuit de la sarthe is already known so i would drop that part. Maybe say that it is in a ferari, no need for the model. When Mclaren won the championship, it was simply said that it was a mclaren, not in a mc24 chassis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.58.130 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least 100 people are killed, including many who were burned to death, hundreds of others are injured, and dozens are still missing, in an attack by unidentified gunmen in Guma, Benue State, Nigeria. (Star Tribune)(AP)
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: Samoan fashion designer and former Project Runway contestant. Article created today, so everything should be cited. ForsythiaJo (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 borough president of Staten Island. Needs a good bit of prose and referencing work. Will see if I can get to it if no one does in the next few days. ~ TailsWx02:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: These protests are the biggest so far against the Trump administration and are also occurring in several countries around the world. Millions participated, and pretty much every big city in the country has a demonstration going on. Sorry for nominating this too early, I didn't mean to cause such outrage. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:27, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment Pinging @Kingsif, @BSMRD, @Masem, @Hungry403, @MtPenguinMonster, @Chrisclear, who opposed my earlier nomination,nNow that the protests have happened. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Major event which is garnering widespread international coverage. The 14th protests are much larger in scale than the prior Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. One sign that a protest movement is noteworthy enough for ITN is when it extends beyond a particular city or even a particular country, and becomes an international event. This is true here: significant "No Kings" anti-Trump marches occurred and received coverage outside of the United States, taking place across Canada, in London (UK), in Paris, in Mexico City, in Amsterdam, in Brussels, I could go on. As well as being the largest nationwide protest in the Trump presidency so far, it has had impacts across the world. FlipandFlopped㋡04:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced that this was more significant than the anti-ICE protests or other Trump news such as the latest flip-flop about agricultural workers. And the "No Kings" slogan doesn't work in the UK where it was King Charles' official birthday. Anyway, the article has multiple orange cleanup tags... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In general, the international coverage is rather meagre, even at the national level, since the press is logically more focused on events in the Middle East. In any case, the figure of ‘millions’ in the RS I have read and in the article itself is ‘expected’ and not confirmed, so the extent of the protests is not yet clear. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still think they are protests with low real impact on the political situation in the country and low international interest. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does PBS say 12 million? Did they change the page? This isn’t the first time I’ve seen it linked as evidence for a higher number than other sources so I’m curious if something happened. La Ovo (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It was a major event that happened in over 2,000 cities in the US and even in other countries, so I think it warrants a mention considering the size and impact. I would maybe alter the blurb to mention that it coincided with the U.S. Army 250th Anniversary Parade, since that was another large newsworthy event with substantial coverage. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I’m gonna have to oppose on notability. While coordinating protests of this breadth is impressive, the protests themselves, based on news reports, were largely simple gatherings that occurred and then ended. There was some violence from people who opposed the protests, but I also don’t think any of those incidents rises to ITN notability, either. We cannot and should not post every planned political gathering just for happening - we waited to see if this would have wider impact or something unplanned and newsworthy occurred in conjunction, and it didn’t - not even when it’s about Trump. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the size is impressive, it was one planned event (across the US) for a single day. Compared to protests that we do post that of that size, those are ones that last for days (eg I'm thinking about the Hong Kong protests as one of the best examples of these). And of course, thankfully mostly peaceful save for a few odd incidents. Barring any immediate ramifications from this, this really doesn't get to the level of significance we'd expect for a protest story. Masem (t) 14:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree as these protests are the largest in Trump's term so far. The LA protests were only confined to a small section of a single city and these protests had millions of participants and happened across the world. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Size alone isn't sufficient, and just a protest that lasts for half a day means it likely will have little immediate impact. Masem (t) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Protests are happening around the world all the time. The Guardian is currently featuring a story of protests against mass tourism in many European cities, e.g. Lisbon, Barcelona, Genoa. Once they start disrupting the economy (e.g. the Yellow Vests protests in France some time ago), have political consequences (e.g. Arab Spring) or turn violent, protests become ITN-relevant, else they're not. Khuft (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We posted 2017 Women's March and March for Our Lives, neither of which were violent or spurred any major political reform. Of course, your position could be that we should have posted neither of those. I am only just offering those as examples in response to your claim that ITN does not post protests unless they are highly disruptive or violent - I don't think that is historically true. FlipandFlopped㋡17:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that those protests were in response to specific issues and moved those to the forefront. The No Kings protests are simply an extension of the anti-Trump movement that has been occurring for the past decade. - RockinJack1818:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is it - apparently the No Kings protests were organised by a billionaire? So probably planned as an outlet for people who want to protest to do so in the least obtrusive and most non-specific way, so nobody who could enact change/feel pressure from protest even knows what they're protesting. Again, fantastic organisational power, but if we can't answer what it's been used for here, how would we describe it. Frankly, I'm glad we haven't been given a reason (protests devolving into violent riots, mass attacks on protesters...) to post in the immediate - and while I'm willing to eat my words, the quiet nature doesn't look to deliver later impact, either. Kingsif (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These protests (like the last ones) have had no impact. It would be worthy of ITN if it resulted in high level American politicians resigning and in that case it would read "x resigned after weeks of protests". So until that happens it's just making a lot of noise and noise is not ITN worthy. People confuse noise and people's hobbies (protesting is a hobby for some) with impactful news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, not significant enough since it's had no effect, I don't think for other countries we would post country-wide protests that were easily ignored by those in power. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very local. Besides, I thought it was the Panthers in the cup, not the Kings - Oilers already took them out. Nfitz (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's an aside pun regarding the Los Angeles Kings. That being said, the main crux of this argument — that these protests are "very local" — is demonstrably false, considering they happened across the United States and somewhat internationally. -insert valid name here- (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just a joke - I don't follow much either. But the "Kings" reference in the protest itself is a bit obscure - it took me a while to figure out what they were even protesting. Yes though - local; it's only in one country, and seems to have died down after only a day. Also, I think WP:NTRUMP applies. Nfitz (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think it's obscure at all. I'll refrain from making any overtly political statements myself, and simply observe that as a foreigner living in a country which does have a king, I have found coverage of these protests to be both reasonable widespread and fairly clearly comprehensible in terms of both the intended meaning of the terminology and its overall focus and effect. I do think we're slightly facing a problem whereby our usual preferred news sources are for some reason underplaying these events in terms of emphasis compared to what their own figures imply about them in terms of turnout and impact - but even without that, these do seem to be genuinely major and significant events. I don't believe that we should be requiring every protest, no matter how large and widespread, to have some sort of secondary effect before we post it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on scale (5 million). We've posted protests elsewhere in the world already, no reason why the same happening in the US is not postable. Banedon (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've posted protests that last for days and weeks. I can't even find much information about what happened on Sunday - let alone what's happening today. This seems to have petered out after a day. At least in terms of coverage. Normally such protests get international print coverage. Looking in today's Globe & Mail (biggest national paper in Canada), which doesn't have a Sunday edition - there's not even a mention of the protests. Despite coverage of the unrelated terrorism in Minnesota. Nfitz (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid uses of ad hoc reasoning, we see your position however this evidence isn't aiding your case. The protests are reported to have exceeded 5 million people, and whether or not it was mentioned in a Canadian newspaper is beside the point to the relevency of the protests. Support. Daneellis114 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Address the issue of the lack of coverage about protests today and tomorrow. And really? THE Canadian newspaper. Which already has too much coverage about that country; and not even a mention? Nfitz (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose News mainly affects only the US, so it's not worth posting it in ITN due to it not really affecting an international level too much. Even if this helps show how people are reacting to Trump's presidency, is this really worth putting it in ITN when this mainly shows the opinion of some people in US on Trump? Other than this, the event won't have a lot of effects later on. BoomBoxBuddy (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Please do not... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one." - From the rules at the top of this page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike for example Maidan or the recent Georgian protests, this was a one-off manifestation, not a sustained effort on the street to overthrow a regime that's lost its legitimacy. Yakikaki (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, won't happen again. @Pawnkingthree consensus as far as I see it is to close due to the protests doesn't have too much of a reach to be in the news hence why I used snowball which was incorrect. Koltinn(talk)15:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 Israeli attack which this man was killed in already has a blurb, and several other Iranian officials with articles have already been nominated. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb doesn't mention these deaths so the point is moot. There's no manner of death disambiguation at RD nominations. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Abcmaxx. I think we can RD him, as it is safe to say consensus will not form for an addendum with specific names of those killed to the Iran blurb. FlipandFlopped㋡17:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been info added to the article, claiming he wasn't killed. I have no possibility to determine the reliability of the sources cited, but this should be settled before anything moves with this nomination. Yakikaki (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for now unless this story develops further. Yes, it's a targeted assassination, but at the end of the day this is sub-national domestic politics with only two high-profile victims and one living to tell the tale. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Man, what is happening in ITNC today? Why is this getting significantly more support than the factually more "newsworthy" US protests yesterday? I don't care if it was the state house speaker, this is still deep in state-level subnational politics. I bet 99% of the US didn't know or even care who these people were before today - not a jab at their actual importance but to say they're on the level of anyone else we've posted the assassination of doesn't sit well with me. Departure– (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EF5 I'd be happy to consider a well written article about a political assassination of another similar politician in another country where such events are rare. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be real, ITN wouldn’t. If two Afghani politicians were murdered by the US, it probably wouldn’t even make the news. EF518:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of a foreign power assassinating someone.(and if the US assassinated the leader of the current Afghan regime it would likely be posted) Again, we can only consider what is nominated- so it's difficult to accuse us of bias until you have actual evidence of that. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your example was assassinated after he left office. Leo Ryan should be the last member of Congress to be killed. You can argue someone else earlier was killed premeditatedly.
Support Rep. Melissa Hortman was the speaker of the MN House and DFL Caucus leader, and she served for 20 years in state legislature, she should be recognized because at this moment it looks like a very clear political violence, in opposition to the No Kings protest Louieclem (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't really think it's a big enough event to qualify for a blurb, it's tragic but not internationally significant. I think a RD is appropriate enough. AFlamingIcicle (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Political assassinations are rare in the US at any level of government. Though the target was two state legislators, there is a national connection as the motivation seems related to anti-Trump protests occurring across the US today(which have been canceled in Minnesota due to these events, because the shooter is at large). This isn't a "subnational politics" issue like an election, and we post subnational events all the time. The BBC is covering it. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a simpler blurb, also noting she was Speaker of the Minnesota House, not just an ordinary legislator. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been 15 minutes after it happened, but now the Guardian's lead is the Israeli assassination of Ali Shamkhani and El Pais is Spanish politics (this ranks 6th). Let's see what's in tomorrow's papers, rather than what is essentially a news ticker. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest close, at least temporarily. I don't think it's productive to have a RD nom up for Hortman while also debating a blurb mostly focused on her death. We should be having one discussion or another, not both. This is not to minimize Hoffman's shooting, but I think in a situation where two politicians are shot and one is killed, the politician being killed is a much bigger piece of news than another being shot. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was hesitant at first, but per 331dot and DMartin's arguments above, it's clear that this isn't a subnational news story even if it's a subnational event. Definitely not just local news. I'm also becoming more supportive of blurbing now that the discovery of the perpetrator's manifesto/kill list all but confirms this was a politically motivated assassination and not just some random act of violence. No matter how common ordinary gun violence may be in the US, successful political assassinations like this just aren't common by any means. Vanilla Wizard 💙18:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Vanilla Wizard. Not routine, not business as usual for the US, receiving international coverage, and likely to be a historically significant act of political violence despite the superficially limited scope, as is often the case with political violence. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A local murder isn't ITN. Ali Shamkhani also died today, and I don't see any blurb nomination for him, despite USA complicity in his assassination. No prejudice on reopening if the murderer kills a governor - which is about the only local position I see hitting the ITN level. If anything, this should be an RD blurb. Nfitz (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there are actually currently four RD nominations about Iranian high officials killed, and the main story about the attack on Iran is a posted blurb. Yakikaki (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support - and did support - specifically naming Shamkhani and Salami in the Iran blurb for the same reason I support this one. They are two important political leaders who were assassinated in a country where such assassinations are not common. A WP:OTHERSTUFF argument especially does not work when there are many who support both this and the other example you are complaining about. FlipandFlopped㋡04:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support not just another piece of gun violence in the US, extremely rare event that has received international coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. We don't typically post crimes against subnational political figures. Local and provincial politicians are sadly a frequent target of violence. The only reason this is getting so much notice is because it's in the United States. If this turns into a broad terrorist plot with multiple participants, I might be open to reconsideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This meets every aspect of WP:ITNPURPOSE. This was a planned attack with a fake police cruiser complete with plates and lights and impersonating a police officer, more than one person was targeted. She was the Speaker, in leadership, not an ordinary legislator. This has worldwide coverage. Willing to consider other similar events from other countries where assassinations are rare events. We can only consider what is nominated, and more posting are a good thing, not bad. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to swear to it, but I don't recall anything being posted. Right now, we don't even know if this was a some kind of broad plot or a lone nutjob with a gun. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The arguments against so far have been absurd and biased (and rife with whataboutisms). This is by all means notable. Assassinations like these are NOT commonplace in the US and conflating them with "gun violence" borders on bad faith. -DannyC55 (Talk) 20:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was an exaggeration (I am not accusing anyone of anything), I simply meant that it is unfair to lump any instance of gun violence in the US with all the run-of-the-mill gun crime that does plague the nation. It just seems almost knee-jerkingly ignoring context. Context matters in cases like this. -DannyC55 (Talk) 20:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb if a victim of the shooting are more emphasized Honestly, i would like to see Melissa Hortman more emphasized in the blurb instead of shootings article because she is far notable to be victim of shooting in Minnesota. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat - I would ideally like to see the blurb include that the assassination (and attempted one) occurred during the early morning of the day the No Kings protest events were scheduled for, even though I probably don't support posting that by itself. That said, I can't think of a concise enough way (that I like) to include that in any of the proposed hooks at this time so I don't want to hold this up any further pending that. Maybe something like Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman is assassinated at her home, and State Senator John Hoffman is injured, during the early morning hours before No Kings protests take place across the United States. but that's too long imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!20:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree that the timings of these events are highly suggestive of a motivation, to say so in wikivoice, especially on the front page, would probably breach WP:SYN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that opposition to this idea, though I disagree that it's synth to point out the temporal coincidence with protests. It's looking like the protests themselves may actually warrant an ITN post as the day goes on, even though they're mostly peaceful. My goal was mainly to not have them as separate items if the protests end up getting posted too. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!21:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a local representative, Alsoriano97, but the Speaker of the subnational House. Is the Speaker of a sub-national house with decades of high-level political leadership less notable as an individual than a national opposition backbencher? Not simple to answer - depth of international coverage and the rarity of the event are better than oversimplifying based on level of government; we have both those criteria here. FlipandFlopped㋡04:41, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support but do not leave out the second shooting. Events are not unconnected to each other or other things we are seeing in the world. All part of the plan. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the former speaker of the Minnesota House has been shot. If this was, say, a sitting U.S. senator or representative it would be posted in no time, and while I get this is statewide level, it’s still a party leader. 24.228.247.138 (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt 2 You could say all you want that this is just another murder, but not only is this somewhat high profile, "just another murder" is so careless. May she rest in peace 24.77.127.72 (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support original blurb, i.e. do not leave out the second shooting. This is an unusual event which is getting widespread international coverage. I strongly prefer the original blurb because a large part of the story is the "plot" to kill multiple legislators and the subsequent manhunt after a series of assassination attempts occurred. Without that additional context, the story gets boiled down to "This representative from Minnesota got shot". No, half the notability comes from the overarching plan which spanned multiple shootings. FlipandFlopped㋡03:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems quite significant. The level of interest in the various articles can be seen in the top read stats for yesterday. Hortman and Hoffman were #1 and #2 while 2025 Minnesota lawmaker shootings was #7. So, our readers were looking for all these topics in large numbers and so they all merit links in the blurb, as in the current primary proposal. The No Kings protests were at #36 and so seem of lesser interest while their connection seems uncertain and that's the only one of these articles with any orange cleanup tags. So, the protest article should be kept separate. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 19 !votes in support to 8 opposed, and ample time has occurred. There has been mass participation and the key arguments hashed out. Tagging ready because I think a consensus decision can now be made. FlipandFlopped㋡13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
consensus is about the quality and strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. I doubt very much that it is ‘ready’. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not read past the first 5 words of my comment. The subsequent words were ample time has occurred, there has been mass participation and the key arguments hashed out. A decision needed tag is fine too. FlipandFlopped㋡14:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a duplicate nomination earlier today. That has been completely removed but that's effectively the third nomination for this story. I suppose that people keep nominating it because it hasn't been posted yet and that indicates the pressure to get this done. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we never post under any kind of pressure or urgency, but only when consensus is reached. And if consensus is not reached until tomorrow, it will be posted tomorrow. You know how this works. Let's remember that this is an encyclopaedia and not the ‘breaking news’ section of a news portal. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support in part because police and officials are treating this as a directed attack that could have included the sitting governor and the US congresspeople in the state in addition to abortion clinics and the like. I would tend to agree that if this didn't have the possible scale beyond one state representative, the significance may not have been as great, but who else was planned in this makes this more disturbing as a story. The article seems to have stabilized as I've watched it, not thrilled with a lot of the "thoughts and prayers"-type reactions but at least that section is constrained. Masem (t) 14:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Posted. Whilst I myself often comment on Americacentrism and I may not have supported myself if I had commented, this story is clearly in the news worldwide, the article is of sufficient quality, the discussion has been open nearly 24 hours and there is a very significant majority in favour of posting. Black Kite (talk)15:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "rare occurrences in modern US politics" is not an exceptional argument enough to be quickly posted. Such decisions sound a bit American-centric. ArionStar (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say pull per my oppose reasoning and per ArionStar. At the very least the blurb should be less awkwardly worded. Note my previous oppose !vote. Departure– (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you already voted, it would be better if you strike this vote here - else you'll just have everyone who already contributed piling up with Support / Oppose pulling comments. Khuft (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Fortunately, targeted assassinations of politicians remains rare, no matter what country we're talking about. This article fits the purpose of ITN. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Regional news or now isn't really relevant, as long as it remain significant and great interest for the country as well as non-US readers. That's the purpose of ITN blurb does. Arguments about opposing the blurb just because a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc should be discounted and suggestion regarding it should be discussed at ITN talk page. 114.4.78.38 (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, this isn't really up to what I and many others would consider a ITN-worthy regional story. I personally think that specific clause should be rewritten as it gives a lot of ammunition to these small stories where WP:GNG is, at least in my eyes, apparently mistaken with WP:ITNSIGNIF. Any locally-important and insignificant but notable story with a good few sources for "notability" that ends up on the top of any given news network could, in theory, wind up being posted with a lot of these same arguments. Departure– (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is a regional killing/targeting of state level politicians by a mad man. It does not meet the level of a blurb. Thriley (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see five pulls to three new supports, counting my own. I'm unsure how this leaves the total consensus counting previous votes but at the very least consensus appears to have shifted at least somewhat away from posting and towards a dead heat - as this begins to fall off of most news tickers I imagine the next round of comments will be even stronger against posting. Departure– (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There really is not, and was not, a 'rough consensus to pull'. People who already registered their support shouldn't be expected to come back and participate in a spurious extra debate/!vote about pulling, with separate counts, conducted in the same thread. This isn't how it works. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pull per my reasoning above. Completely biased, and I’m someone who typically lobbies that ITN isn’t biased. EF515:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pull The topics are still attracting lots of attention and there's continuing coverage globally of the suspect's capture. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support I'm a narrow support on the original nom, but decision to post was well-reasoned and documented. Pulls should be rare and tied to error in judgement from the admin, not a mild shifting of vote counts. GreatCaesarsGhost12:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support A shocking assassination, which is rare and clearly ITN worthy. Also per Great Caesar's Ghost, we should not be pulling items without a very good reason.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pull - I believe this was appropriately posted, and the case for posting was well-made. I especially agree with Great Caesar's Ghost - I was somewhat marginal on the original proposal, but pulling this entirely solid story would be inappropriate. I don't think accusations of bias are appropriate - this is a high-profile case in a country where political assassinations are extremely rare. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as we've generally posted in the past. Quality isn't there yet though, it needs a write up of the match, aftermath if available, and a few more refs here and there. — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality per Moraljaya and Amakuru. Willing to support on notability, but article is currently incomplete with empty subsections. FlipandFlopped㋡04:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 President of Nicaragua. Needs an update with her death (I’ll go add the reference now), but otherwise(ETA: now updated.) The article is in excellent shape (it’s a GA). Innisfree987 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC) Innisfree987 (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support article is in great condition but I added a cn tag and there is no mention of her term ending and handing over power to Alemán. First elected female president in the Americas makes me think about proposing a possible blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Violeta Chamorro's death should be featured, she was the first elected female president of the Americas, on top of being Nicaragua's 55th president. This has been an underreported event in today's busy day of news so featuring it could shine light in underrepresented corners of the world.Greeniceking (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb: Important national figure. Being the first (elected) female president in an entire continent (if you count both Americas as a single continent) is a pretty big achievement if you ask me. HOPPIO[talk]10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I spotted a CN note in the presidency section, at the end of the first paragraph. When it's resolved, I see nothing else that would hinder a support.Support CN issue was resolved.83.187.176.82 (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb Very well written article, and she was the first female president in Central and South America. Coincidentally, it also is an opportunity to highlight a very well-written article (much better than most ITN pieces which are thrown together in response to a current event), so it makes my support stronger. FlipandFlopped㋡17:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, neutral on blurb Article quality is fine for RD, but my issue with a blurb is that this does not establish how she was a major figure in terms of the politics of Nicaragua, even the lede is vague to explain what importance to the role she brought (ignoring being the first female president). There's elements laced throughout the text that get to this but its very hard to read though to actually see this. Having more details of why her role was important and or created a legacy for the country really is needed to support the blurb. I'm not against a blurb but I feel we need to improve the article this way first before we can have the blurb. Masem (t) 18:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's all buried in there, among other details. It should for one be very clear in the lede, and ideally there should be a separate section about her impact or legacy or equivalent, so that it is very clear why she was a major figure, according to RSes. Saying she did all these things as a claim to being an important figure is really not sufficient, we need sourcing specifically along these lines. Masem (t) 13:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support either RD or blurb, important historical figure, and is worth posting their death in RD or as a blurb. Nice to see that it also is tagged as ready.BoomBoxBuddy (talk) 17:49, 16 June 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 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: U.S. state representative, who was shot and killed at her home this morning. Article seems long enough and well cited, although we may still need sourcing for her birth date. ForsythiaJo (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, curious about blurb. This was the targeted assassination of a political leader alongside the attempted assassination of another. I'm not sure if it's enough to qualify, because within an American context it's a major escalation, but I'm Minnesotan and don't believe myself neutral enough. Birthdate is currently sourced, but could put a better source if that's an issue for others. ~Malvoliox(talk | contribs)15:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb if politically motivated assassination. The Guardian is also just mentioning that a state senator was shot as well? If so, we should blurb the whole incident. Khuft (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD Article quality is adequate with decent referencing. Oppose blurb for now. We don't generally post crime involving subnational political figures. Open to reconsideration if this turns into a major terrorist incident. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD If there are major political consequences stemming from the shootings, then blurb. There's a nonzero chance that this simply gets lost in the news cycle due to short attention span of American media. Bremps...15:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD on quality, open to making 2025 Minnesota lawmaker shootings a blurb if there's sufficient support, but agree that it will depend on how much attention the news gives it. I'm biased towards supporting that blurb as a former Minnesotan who's very upset by this, but I also recognize we wouldn't be as likely to consider posting if this were a subnational politician in another country. Vanilla Wizard 💙16:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD and maybe even a blurb. This was an assassination of a MN state representative as well as the shooting of a state Senator, both of them from the DFL party. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD, oppose blurb subnational politician, subnational tragic incident. Awaiting news of the injured senator's progress and any serious consequences this shooting may cause. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Political assassinations are very rare in the US at any level of government. It was also part of a wider attack where another state politician was shot. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "gun violence". I said "political assassinations". Giffords was not killed and that was in 2011. As I said, very rare. 331dot (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gun violence in the US is common, but the successful assassination of sitting politicians is not. The article you linked to was an event from 2011 where the target survived. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blurb The combined blurb nomination seems more sensible. Running this as an ordinary RD without any context would be quite misleading. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Her article seems fine to me. Not too sure on whether the blurb is necessary or not, though. (+ I nominated her page too and didn't notice that it was already nominated. Sorry.) HOPPIO[talk]10:33, 15 June 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.
Oppose regretfully as typhoons affecting the Philippines and Vietnam are a frequent occurrence, and this one was thankfully one of the less deadly ones. For comparison, the 2024 Pacific typhoon season had 9 typhoons that were deadlier than this one, 8 of which affected the Philippines. Vanilla Wizard 💙17:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell, are you making a point or is this an actual !vote?
In any event, I weakly oppose not because of the casualty count or region, but simply because I don't see evidence of widespread, international coverage (i.e. non-regional, would need to see newspapers or RS outside of southeast Asia). If that was presented to me, I would consider supporting. FlipandFlopped㋡04:24, 15 June 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.
Nominator's comments: These protests are the biggest so far against the Trump administration and are also occurring in several countries around the world. Millions are expected to participate, and pretty much every big city in the country has a demonstration going on. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait I believe we did post the George Floyd protests, but (besides planned protests not generally being as impactful as spontaneous crowd-driven riots) can we please wait until things actually happen to decide if they're worth nominating. Kingsif (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Premature Nom This will probably be a Support in twelve hours, but considering it's the middle of the night in the States these haven't actually happened yet. As is, the article doesn't have anything to say yet beyond "this is a thing that is going to happen". Wait until it's actually in the news to put it up on ITN. BSMRD (talk) 04:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Way too early, we really need to see what the combined effect of these protests (including the actual number, not a guess) as well as the military parade, result in to see if it makes sense for ITN, what the quality of the articles are, and so forth. Masem (t) 04:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait or Close Far too early, we must see the results of these protests (government response, turnout, injuries, etc.) before posting them to ITN. I do believe that they will be significant, and in 18 hours I'll support this nom. Article is also pretty short right now. Hungry403 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any specific rule about premature nominations, or is it largely a free-for-all, with no sanctions for people nominating things that haven't yet occurred? Chrisclear (talk) 07:09, 14 June 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.
Exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last Shah, writes in Farsi calling for the Iranian military to abandon the Islamic Republic and accuses Supreme LeaderAyatollah Ali Khamenei of forcing Iranians into the war. He also refers to the war as "Khamenei's war and the Islamic Republic's war". (Jerusalem Post)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Israel is conducting a campaign against Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists; we already link to the article about this campaign in the ITN box so I don't think it's necessary to list each deceased Iranian official separately. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, if this man died of cancer we would list him, but because he was killed in an attack we already blurbed (but where we never mentioned his name) we don't list him? starship.paint (talk / cont)14:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RD is RD, not "a list of people killed by Israel". The exact means of death is not relevant to my point; many people with articles dying due to the same, immediate event is an unusual situation. We already have this event in ITN. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who dies in a blurbed event, unless explicitly mentioned in the blurb, is eligible for RD. That is why Vijay Rupani is currently on RD despite his death event being blurbed. Curbon7 (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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 current blurb is short enough to add ", killing IRGC leaders () and () and nuclear scientists () and ()." Or alternatively, given that Salami's death here is probably the most significant, have his name there and then RD the others. When we've had multiple notable people die from the same event, we typically only included perhaps the most significant one or two in the blurb (like with that plane crash carrying a assc. football team some time back). Masem (t) 03:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for altblurb For me, posting both blurb and RD with same subject (Hossein Salami) isn't really necessary given that this person is still related to June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran but far more notable than others. I suggest that there exist a single merged blurb and RD, which mean a blurb to be posted about Israeli strike but more emphasize about him. 114.10.75.52 (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question It is unclear how RD handles these events in which several notable but generally minor people die. Are they all eligible for RD nomination? If the Smolensk air disaster occurred today, would all ~80 people with articles who died (list) be eligible? Curbon7 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear, nothing stops us from posting an RD as long as basic article criteria is met. We post as soon as that happens and consensus is gained, the previous entries then roll-off. Gotitbro (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurb is in the goldilocks zone in terms of size and information, so I think adding names would be too much. Article seems to be of sufficient quality. Any WP-notable person who dies in a blurbed event but is not mentioned in the blurb should still be eligible for an RD (see the Vijay Rupani nomination below). Curbon7 (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the blurb is unlikely to change especially given the number of high-profile deaths resulting from the strikes, this is now ready for RD regardless. @Admins willing to post ITN: please note that the admin decision on this will impact at least 4 other RD nominations. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This will obvious be a posted story, but lets please wait to at least get an extent of the damage and death toll (if any) before rushing to post. That might take several hours. Masem (t) 01:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support but wait an hour or two per Masem. Ugh, here we go again. TheKip(contribs)
Wait Rapidly developing story, need to wait and for the article to stabilize (definitely more than some hours). Another nuclear crisis within a month, the last one was pulled due to how hastily it was posted (with major issues at the target article), should not do the same here. Gotitbro (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The situation is evolving rapidly but the article is of adequate length and quality for posting. The proposed blurb works and can be modified if warranted. People will be coming to Wikipedia looking for information on this. On which note; good job to everybody working on the article. I am impressed by the speed with which they got it together. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"People will be coming to WP looking for this information." Then they are coming to the wrong place. The networks have all gone to full coverage of this, all major news sites have this as leading info. We can spend the few hours to wait for the information to stabilize out so that we can be a supplement, not a replacement, for the news. Masem (t) 03:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, ITN is not a news ticker, and we've been burned on posting entries too fast recently in terms of quality issues. I don't think anyone is going to oppose this on importance, but here we should wait for a good confirmation of details before we rush to push. Masem (t) 02:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. We summarize reliable sources, and because this story is still developing quickly, we cannot yet have a reasonable stable summary of it yet. Probably in a few hours we will. Masem (t) 03:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it'll be the only story - the Air India crash is also dominating news bulletins and will probably continue to do so over the weekend. – numbermaniac15:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Let's give the Israelis the time to finish the operation and the Iranians a moment to assess the damages. Else, we're reporting incomplete information. Bremps...02:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Almost certain to be notable enough to post, but I'd prefer if enough time passed for it to be possible to know the extent, effects, and aftermath of the strikes: how much damage was done, how many casualties were there, what does Iran do in response, etc. I'm sure a little more information will become available over the next 6-12 hours. Vanilla Wizard 💙03:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support amending to altblurb once article stabilized The article actually looks pretty decent now, but I agree with Vanilla Wizard and Masem that letting the article stabilize is a good idea. I disagree with an exact death toll being a prerequisite - that is going to be extremely hard to estimate, will be hotly contested (Israel and Iran will disagree), and will inevitably end up being amended after it is posted. Instead, I support something resembling the alt - killing Hossein Salami is major; he ranked even higher than Qasem Soleimani, whose death we blurbed. FlipandFlopped㋡04:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw the entry in ITN and read the article and it seemed ok to me. I now see that it has been pulled because of an orange tag. But that seems to relate to POV issues about the historical background going back to the time of the Shah. That doesn't seem very relevant to coverage of the current incident and the resolution seems likely to be truncation of the background. That dispute shouldn't get in the way of our coverage of the main story. Perhaps the tagger, Vanilla Wizard, can tell us how this is likely to play out. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before I added the orange tag on the article, there were already at least 3 separate talk page sections expressing concerns about the Background section, two about due weight concerns, and one about POV concerns. There seems to be at least a few contributors in favor of just deleting that section entirely, at least until a new one can be written with only details made notable by sources published about the event. Right now, the background section is just a rapidly mutating coatrack full of irrelevant information with serious POV issues. I'm hoping editors will come to an agreement on what to do about it soon so it can be posted, but I can't predict how long that would take. Vanilla Wizard 💙05:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I notice now is that there seems to be little understanding of the fact that this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA and so is subject to 1RR and other restrictions. Tricky... Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not obvious that it is covered by PIA, as Arab countries haven't had any direct involvement in the conflict. From what I understand, it is only related to Iran's nuclear program rather than its Arab proxies. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:47, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background section has now been removed along with its tags. But a {{pov}} tag was added to the International reaction section. There's no discussion for that and the summary doesn't make it clear what the issue is. I'd be inclined to ignore such noise but don't want to revert as I'm saving my 1RR. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second pov tag has gone now but we now have a sourcing tag on a section which lists target locations. It's a moving target... Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's lede doesn't mention "cities", it says "nuclear facilities, military installations, and the residences of senior officials". The blurb should have simililar wording. Vpab15 (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess someone who added that CTOP notice considered a broadly construed definition of the Arab-Israeli sanctions which is justified and something I would agree with. My reply was primarily pertaining to the fact that whether this conflict actually falls under the Arab–Israeli conflict label/topic, it doesn't. Gotitbro (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot Just my interpretation, but I've generally taken ARBPIA as broadly construed to cover basically anything having to do with Israel in a political and military sense, even beyond things solely relating to Arabs. TheKip(contribs)18:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Major notable event with major media coverage; people will look for information on it in Wikipedia. Noon (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done work to revamp much of the background section. All sources dating to before 12 June 2025 have been removed. New background content has been added, all of which the sources wrote or updated after the attacks. starship.paint (talk / cont)14:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: An orange tag still remains in the table of locations hit. Unless someone reliable has published a similar list, I might suggest removing it until someone can cobble together the variety of sources needed for something like that. Ed[talk][OMT]16:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously, and I think we can just run this now. Yes, updates continue to come in, but the article looks good, and even as things stand, this event is notable. I'd be favorable to the original blurb - I'm not sure specifically mentioning Salami over every other noteworthy person killed is appropriate. The big news here is the military escalation. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that was the right move. I had ignored that section because it seemed kinda odd, and figured it would probably just end up being removed. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. This is the story. If anything else happens, that might be another story. Although whether there'll be any of us left to tell it is another question. —Fortuna, imperatrix17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein I'd suggest specifying "senior military leadership" in the blurb - "senior leadership" in general can also imply civilian government officials, which doesn't seem to have happened (so far). TheKip(contribs)18:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: blurb Per BBC, Iranian media now reports 78 civilian deaths, including children, and that numerous residential areas were struck in Tehran. For now, that number of civilians killed is only an initial report from Iranian state TV as opposed to an official government statement. However, as more information comes to light about the ratio of civilians killed to military killed, there could be cause for concern about the wording of the current blurb. I can see an argument that simplifying it down to an attack against the nuclear program and senior military leadership is not WP:NPOV, given that that description perfectly aligns with the Israeli position while being the opposite of the Iranian position .FlipandFlopped㋡19:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipandflopped From the next sentence in the article after Iranian media reporting 78 civilian deaths: This is an unofficial figure and has not been independently verified.WP:PRESSTV, WP:HISPANTV, and WP:TASNIMNEWSAGENCY also establish a consensus that Iranian state-owned media is generally not reliable.
I'm not saying civilians didn't die, they almost certainly did, but we're in no rush to update/modify the blurb when RSes haven't independently confirmed the reports. It's not endorsing the Israeli position to state that the strikes targeted the nuclear program and military leadership when that's what RSes have confirmed thus far. TheKip(contribs)20:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. To clarify, I certainly agree that it isn't reliable - I myself am the one who proposed the altblurb. However, needing to keep an eye on emerging casualty counts of this sort comes with the territory when we rush to post blurbs while missiles are still being exchanged. If or when we have independent confirmation of that high a number of civilian casualties, in my mind it would become a WP:NPOV issue if the blurb continues to frame it as a targeted attack. If there's no independent verification but that number becomes official per the Iranian regime, I am not as sure, but I could see a case for reducing the blurb back down to the "Israel strikes Iran" language for the sake of NPOV. FlipandFlopped㋡20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can whittle down the language to simply say Iran, but that may also tone down the gravity of the situation that is portrayed when you specify that the attack is on nuclear sites. On the corollary our current blurb suggests an engagement in an ongoing military confrontation when that is also not the case. Though I would still prefer the whittling down as we should now also be adding the retaliatory Iranian strikes. Gotitbro (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update The blurb currently reads "Israel launches multiple airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program and senior military leadership". This seems inadequate because the range of targets also included military installations such as missile sites and air defences and the strikes have continued on both sides with Iran using missiles and drones against Israel and Israel making further attacks. The NYT reports that "Attacks flew in both directions as Israel said its campaign would continue for days, if not longer, and Iran said its response was not over." So, we should indicate that operations are continuing and link to June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel to cover both sides. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:35, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need an update for the Iranian strikes, and as othere have reasoned above need to remove the minutae of Israeli targets. Gotitbro (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it needs to be updated, as it doesn't cover Irans retaliatory strikes and also the airstrikes targeting other things like infrastructure.
Something like "Israel launches multiple airstrikes against Iran and Iran retaliates by sending ballistic missiles and drones against Israel".
Although maybe this doesnt indicate the ongoing nature of it enough.
The other page is in a deletion discussion currently.
Indeed. For clarity, the blurb is now "Israel launches multiple airstrikes across cities in Iran, killing various nuclear scientists and military officials, including IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami." Presenting this as a one-sided action seems quite misleading now. For example, the BBC's headline is now "Iran launches fresh missile strikes on Israel as conflict enters fourth day." Andrew🐉(talk) 07:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eight Palestinian GHF workers are killed and several others are injured after their bus was attacked en route to an aid distribution site in southern Gaza. The GHF says that Hamas was responsible. (The New York Times)(Reuters)
Police fire tear gas at demonstrators gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, to protest against the police and its chief, Eliud Lagat, after blogger Albert Ojwang is confirmed to be killed in custody by the police force, demanding Lagat's resignation. (DW)
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.
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.
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.
Is there any precedent in policy to specifically exclude victims of mass casualty events covered on main page from RD even if the blurb does not mention them? Tube·of·Light15:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an RD nomination, never a blurb nomination. I don't think we've ever avoided posting an RD just because someone died in an event that was blurbed. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?16:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if we've not posted a victim of an event when the event is blurbed or not. He's definitely not notable enough to be tacked on to the blurb though. If there is support for posting as a RD, then fine. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD only Not really notable enough to posted it as blurb because it was already merged with Air India 171 blurb. But, given that he is more notable than other victims, i agree to post it as RD. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what has trigerred the talk of a blurb because I don't see any mention of it in the nom. For RD we only need an article of which this is a long existing one. Neither is a blurb barring us from posting RD related to it (precedent even tells otherwise, we posted to RD those killed in the Potomac crash just this year). Gotitbro (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see initial reports suggest that it will likely meet WP:ITNSIGNIF, but until more details and sourcing about the crash and impact are known, it would be premature to post this. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is the first major hull loss of the 787 and it's already a serious accident. Seems like it's already a significant event to be included here. Hacked (Talk|Contribs)
Oh well. Though to be fair we nearly got to two hours there and a partially complete article, as opposed to the 45 minutes and unsourced sections for Brian Wilson yesterday. Black Kite (talk)12:22, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but he apparently walked out of the wreckage. And this, again, is why we need to stop posting stuff so quickly. Any relative of that survivor that clicked on our article earlier would have assumed he was dead. Black Kite (talk)17:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly, but again, this is a top 10 website and our article said "it was confirmed" that all 242 had died. People make mistakes, but this is, again, why we shouldn't be splattering disasters all over the Main Page a few hours after they've happened. Black Kite (talk)18:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And again, wait. For all we know, there may well be an unconscious plane survivor in a hospital. It was only because the first one was conscious that we knew about him. Black Kite (talk)17:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that several ppl on the ground also died from this, it would be inappropriate to focus on the sole surviving passenger. Masem (t) 18:10, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The image caption should indicate that the photograph is of the aircraft involved, not a generic Air India 787. JDiala (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Gaza Health Ministry reports that the official death toll of Palestinians killed in the war since October 2023 has reached 55,000 people, with over 127,000 people wounded. (AP)
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.
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.
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.
Oppose Several unsourced paragraphs and I'm also worried about promotional wording here. The sourcing issues are clearly apparent if you read the Career section. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article was fully sourced when the other two supported. An editor removed a bunch of the citations because they were "unnecessary and redundant", which I've raised to the talk page here. No disrespect to that editor of course, but it seems like a lot of those changes were done with that string of edits. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@QuicoleJR the page is a work in progress. After volunteering hours in this editorial undertaking, on this date, with the understanding that the issue noted here was references... I did not "erase" any references. However, the "referenced notes that I did omit were notes references that were used up to 12 times. the same link used on more than one occasion. ... I believe the recorded minutes should reflect that fact. So, the body of the article was never really properly referenced initially ... I am responsible for trying to fix that , if that makes sense. On that note, please take a moment to review the number of credible references that I have provided since I began participating in the article Ananda Lewis. HumanWritesBook (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HumanWritesBook: Articles are allowed to cite the same source multiple times. Removing those repeat citations actually makes the article worse, not better. Also, I understand that this is a work-in-progress, but it shouldn't go on the Main Page until that process is complete. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the above squabble is resolved. But for now, I placed 14 citation needed tags. That's of course a showstopper. Schwede6605:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support blurb Article was missing the death details when I nominated this at same time, but easy to fix. Rest of article appears to be on great shape and here is a case where there is a very clear section written to support how he was a major figure in music, so a blurb seems absolutely appropriate. Masem (t) 17:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and support blurb Probably the easiest blurb in existence music wise. Of course, issues will need fixed, but it’s hard not say Brian Wilson wasn’t influential not only for pop music, but culture, art, and even mental health (and abuse of someone in their state) awareness. TheCorriynial (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb on notability per Masem; would only post once the article has stabilized a little bit though, given the breaking nature of the death. FlipandFlopped㋡17:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot really articulate why in words, but I am not a fan of this image... it has a little bit of an "uncanny valley" feeling to it. I would prefer one of the images that are currently in his article (either the lede photo, or if one of him younger is desirable, then the 1964 photo). FlipandFlopped㋡17:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the panicked rush to post a blurb in 45 minutes, we just posted an article with an unsourced discography and filmography. We don't do that. Any reason why I shouldn't pull this? Black Kite (talk)18:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, half my comment got ate. Yes, the filmography hpuld be sourced though some of those works are biographical/documentaries around the band or Wilson and are also self evidence. But several are not, though this probably could be fixed in a hour at most, compared to what we usually see in biographical articles. Masem (t) 18:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A blurb with an entire unsourced section is an exceptional case, though. An editor has started citing the filmography so there's probably no point in pulling it now. We seriously need consistency, really. Black Kite (talk)19:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow's FA is Mariah Carey. That has three sections without sources – Discography, Filmography and Tours. That is clearly not a problem for TFA. If ITN invented a stronger standard then that would be inconsistent with general policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to do an RFC, it should be aligned between ITN, FA/GA, and BLP, among others, as what the expectation is for lists of works, when sourcing is required, when we can rely on blue links, etc. It needs to be handled consistently across the project. Masem (t) 20:53, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As he who started the talk page discussion mentioned above, I agree with the need for an RFC. This recurring debate demonstrates it is both a genuine ambiguity meriting clarification and that not all of the community is on the same page about referencing works/appearances. FlipandFlopped㋡00:13, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: unsourced discography: I randomly sampled it, and it seems the works are mentioned and sourced in the prose. It'd be convenient for readers if the sources were repeated, but one might argue it is minimally demonstrated to be verifiable. —Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment once again the imprudence of being carried away by the ‘breaking news’ and putting the notability before the quality of the article is committed. Not bad, but there are two sections with unsourced content. There was no hurry and we don't learn from mistakes. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss the unsourced sections when I scanned through earlier, but that said, the amount of effort to get those sections sourced (if needed) is far less work compared to the type of biographical articles with dozens upon dozens of unsourced works with several in obscure media. It should have been fixed before posting, yes, but it's being fixed now if not done already. We definitely dont want to post articles where the level of missing sources would require multiple editors or multiple dates to fix, but that really isn't the case here. Masem (t) 20:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retroactive Oppose blurb, although this one hurts because I love Brian and the beach boys, but I've gotta stick to my principles here. An elderly person dying is not news, he had been publicy unwell for ages. –DMartin04:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support because the suggestion that the "Discography" section (a list of 12 albums by him, each with their own Wikipedia article; and thoroughly expanded upon in the sourced sub-article Brian Wilson discography, and supported by at least two of the external links) needs inline footnotes is thoroughly misguided. 217.180.228.155 (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm struck by the similarities between Wilson and Sly Stone. Both were talented and influential US musicians whose career was limited by drugs and a chaotic life. They both found fame with a group but failed to become a solo superstar. As they were big over 50 years ago I was expecting their readership to be limited. The views so far seem comparable. Wilson's spike is bigger but not yet over a million. He's Level 5 vital while Stone isn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:30, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Orbitalbuzzsaw was not saying only politicians are famous, but that (in addition to their other briefly written points) one reason a death may be posted as a blurb is when it forces a major global change, which will not happen in this case, so this potential reason for a blurb is not met. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(post-posting) Oppose blurb Non-notable manner of death so this would have to come down to Wilson's importance. You know I don't like arguing for/against such, it's not a nice way of looking at a person's death in the immediate aftermath. But. While Wilson can be credited in large part with California sound, and there's no doubt the Beach Boys were popular and influential, this is ultimately just one guy from just one popular band. California sound and yacht rock are great, but not particularly large sub-genres of pop, at least not since the 60s, so IMO that doesn't add so much more weight to his legacy when compared to his bandmates. So even with the once-again broader standards ITN has been having for death blurbs, I feel like Wilson is not a level above his peers (which I'd define as any member of a band from 50+ years ago that were popular enough we still remember them) to warrant a blurb. Kingsif (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a argument about this but I just have to respond. It's not just about the California sound, Wilson's achievements in composition and the recording studio are the basis for practically all of modern pop music. If he is not notable than you could also then reasonably argue Paul McCartney isn't notable either, and at that point you may as well say no modern musician is notable. Rhino131 (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also add though that I don't thing importance or significance should even factor into blurbs though because it only leads to pointless and unhelpful discussions like this. A RD should be good enough for anyone, unless this is extra information regarding the death (like changing head of state, notable accident) that would require a blurb to communicate. Rhino131 (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, this latter point is my general view. The RD line exists so we can feature the bios people may be looking for - and the more famous someone is, the less likely they need a blurb for visibility. The RD line’s presumed notability means avoiding all this debate. If the death itself is a news story, let its newsworthiness be discussed. Now to why I’m replying, which I likewise feel I very much have to:
I maintain that Wilson did not transcend his peers - of which McCartney was one - which is not to disparage him but to see his successes align with the successes those around him had, too, which were many. Among those peers, one could easily argue McCartney, however, does transcend most or all of the others. Both can be true, unless your first reply is trying to say that since McCartney is a generational musician, all other musicians of his generation have to be considered just as remarkable. This is a dangerous argument: we could extrapolate then that within every group of people famous for similar things, if one is outstanding then they all have to be given that reverence - and ultimately that everyone warrants a blurb because someone in their field was top of it. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't argue that McCartney stands at the top. My point was that to put Brian Wilson below the line of importance for a blub makes the line almost impossibly high- so it it nearly reaches McCartney. The article I think makes a clear case for his legacy to music. But that is mostly an issue with the ITN process as "importance" and "significance" can vary greatly by person, as it clearly does here. We shall respectfully agree to disagree. Rhino131 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Welcome to ITN! Your nomination looks fine. However, I will vote oppose as his conviction does not change anything on the ground (he is effectively serving life in California) and because the verdict isn't as explosive as when he was first convicted (that sparked the Weinstein effect, this is more so a normal trial). Bremps...02:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment: Insufficient depth of coverage; what did he accomplish in his role as a delegate? The article talks more time about his DUI and casino ban than what he did as a politician (outside of a list of his positions). SpencerT•C02:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.
Support Unsual event, I would not call this "very local" at all and the impact of the riots has been very widely written about in UK media. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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: German painter, sculptor, op artist, and installation artist, famous for his nail reliefs. Grimes209:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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: Oklahoman meteorologist. Saved thousands of lives during his reporting of the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak and other events. RIP to a legend. The article needs a ton of referencing work however; I'll get to it soon if no one picks up on it. ~ TailsWx03:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sigh, RIP Gonna have to oppose for now per the usual (cite issues). I might work on this a bit in the following days.WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: There's an article for the president, and another for the judicial case itself. I'm not sure which one should be bolded. And should the blurb focus on the sentence or the reason? Trying to do both may make it a bit too long. Cambalachero (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically, I believe the six year sentence was handed down years ago (in 2022): see NYT article from December 6, 2022. This recent development is not the sentencing itself, but the failure of her appeal both on the conviction and the sentence before the Argentinian Supreme Court, who upheld the lower court ruling - thus cementing the six-year sentence already delved out. She also likely will not serve time in jail (per NYT: 2), as she will benefit from an Argentinian law that allows house arrest for those over 70 who are convicted of a non-violent crime. I am still undecided on the ultimate notability of the Supreme Court decision, but would oppose blurb in its current form as somewhat misleading. FlipandFlopped㋡04:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely now the right moment because the sentence has become final after the appeals, so that the prison sentence (or house arrest) is ready to be carried out immediately in accordance with what the judges and the prosecutor's office have already requested. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the case, but the blurb should be modified to reflect that, as it is currently quite misleading. She was not just recently sentenced - she was sentenced in 2022 - nor will she serve six years in jail by law. The blurb should reflect that this was a ruling on an appeal, as well as that there will be no jail time. Something along the lines of "The Supreme Court of Argentina upholds the conviction on corruption charges of Former Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (pictured) and finalizes her sentence, including six years house arrest and a lifetime prohibition on running for office". I've added this as Alt2. FlipandFlopped㋡14:07, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Striving for shortness is no excuse to post an objectively incorrect blurb. Again, she was not recently sentenced and she will not spend six years in jail. She lost her appeal of the conviction, and will be subjected to house arrest. FlipandFlopped㋡17:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that house arrest is not granted automatically. A judge must receive and consider the request, and grant it or not. So far, that has not happened. The media crystal ball says it will likely do, but we're not there yet. As of now, the standing sentence is six years in jail, with jail meaning jail. Cambalachero (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the biggest news is not the jail time, but being banned from running for office. She's basically a female left-wing Donald Trump of South America, so this news is nothing less than a political earthquake. Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slightly amended nomination as we can bold both the individual and the case articles, we don't have to necessarily choose between them. Abcmaxx (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the CFK article has orange-tagged sections that should be revised in case it is the bolded article that is also wanted and the article on the corruption case I think it lacks updating. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Firstly, this isn't really news now, it was news in 2022, and indeed the same story was proposed then - [2] - but it seems like it failed due to a combination of aging out and because the article wasn't really up to scratch and had an orange tag. Secondly, on that note, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner still has tags, for a lack of update on the legal issue (not to mention that there are lots of missing cites there), as well as a neutrality concern on the "Image" section. Overall, even though the original story was several years ago, I still don't think there's a case for posting this now as a second bite of the cherry. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This was posted before" is a good reason to oppose, "This was proposed before", not so much. Circumstances are not the same now and in 2022. Cambalachero (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No change in the status quo. In addition sourcing problems and the infrastructure case article leaves much to be desired for a scenario involving a world leader (compare to Operation Car Wash) Masem (t) 17:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change in the status quo? She was banned from running for office again. In fact, she had announced that she would run in the upcoming elections in the Buenos Aires Province, which this sentence has now prevented, so the "changes in the status quo" are quite tangible. And if there are problems with the article about the case, please state actionable ones: "much to be desired" is not really helpful. Cambalachero (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Not "Just an appeal", but the final one, the one that makes the sentence actually enforceable. Previous sentences did not change much because of the appeals, now there are actual and tangible consequences. This is in no way similar to 2022 (and it was not posted back then anyway). Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Weak Support Ideally the article length should be a bit longer. But I think it meets our customary standards in terms of article quality, if barely. I am presuming it will expand as more details become available. The event itself is shocking for Europe where gun crime is rare. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
Done Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC).jpg?lang=en)
_(cropped).png?lang=en)
4 are Level 4 vital. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
