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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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 claims that Hamas was responsible. (The New York Times)(Reuters)
Police fire tear gas at demonstrators gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, to protest against the Kenya Police and its chief, Eliud Lagat, after bloggerAlbert 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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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]
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]
A convoy of 300 buses and cars departs from Tunis, Tunisia to Gaza to spotlight Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid. The group, organized independently, includes 7,000 lawyers, medical professionals and activists from North Africa. (Euronews)(The Jerusalem Post)
The Indian Coast Guard rescues 18 crew members from a Singaporean-flagged container ship after it catches fire following an explosion 144 km (89 mi) off the coast of Kerala, India. Search operations are underway for the missing four crew members. (DW)
Two police cars and multiple properties are damaged in Ballymena, Northern Ireland, with 15 police officers being injured and one rioter arrested amid riots which broke out after two Romanian teenagers were charged for the attempted rape of a teenage girl. (BBC News)
A court in Prague, Czech Republic, sentences a Colombian national to eight years in prison over a 2024 arson attack on public buses and for planning another similar attack. Czech prime minister Petr Fiala says the arson attack is part of Russia's hybrid war against his country. (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.
Comment Sly Stone may be worth a blurb, having created and led one of the first mixed race bands to ever hit it big and many bands have since followed in that path. And with songs that are classics, He's a pretty well known name. And musical influence also exists from what came after with funk, and the early origins of rap. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's potential but I think fixing the numerous missing sources needs to be a higher priority. After that, bolstering the Legacy section with more reasons why he was considered a major figure in progressive rock/funk (pulling from obits would help) would help to make supporting a blurb more defensible. Masem (t) 00:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Blurb Sly is the most influential R&B/soul ('funk,' as some people call it) act after maybe James Brown in the entire history of recorded music. He had 4 number one Hot 100 singles and his songs are known worldwide even by literal children. Miles Davis would never have gone electric without his music, creating what we know as jazz fusion. Michael Jackson and Prince simply would not have existed, and neither would all modern pop music as a result. Disco, post-disco, post-punk, house music (and all electronic dance music), boogie, new jack swing, P-Funk, G-Funk, neo-soul, and arguably all hip hop as we know it would never have happened without Sly Stone. His band was revolutionary in breaking the color (and gender) barrier and the article goes in depth about his sheer impact. It would be a blight on Wikipedia not to blurb him, assuming that the article is updated to be in good condition. 108.147.206.21 (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the sourcing sucks. I've fixed some of it, but this is a poorly written and sourced article. I don't have the time to resscue it. It's unfortunate that this article was not of better quality when he died. He is very noteworthy, but the article doesn't do him justice.– Abebenjoe (talk) 07:15, 10 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.
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.
Oppose Tragic, but the death toll is substantially low. The fact that it's the deadliest in a decade doesn't directly imply ITN-worthiness. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:19, 9 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.
(Closed) Israel seizes and detains members of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla
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.
"Intercepts" implies some sort of precise military action. I don't think the flotilla was hiding. HiLo48 (talk)
Oppose for now For now, I think this is covered by ongoing and an additional blurb would be undue coverage, given we otherwise decline to post so many events related to the Gaza war on this basis. However, I am open to changing my vote if the scale of the controversy amplifies (if, for example, Greta Thunberg is criminally charged in Israel and detained, as opposed to being released back to Sweden). FlipandFlopped㋡06:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose covered by ongoing and I doubt it is particularly noticeable beyond the propaganda made by those who are part of the flotilla. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Greta Thunberg was one of the top read articles yesterday with about a third of a million views (more than the Tony Awards or Sly Stone, who was my starting point). The freedom flotilla article was also in the list but not so prominent as I suppose its title is not so easy to find. So, the topic has definitely been noticed and ITN can help with the navigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew, nobody here cares about page view stats and nobody ever has. Quite frankly, it’s embarrassing that you continue to ignore that and plow straight ahead. TheKip(contribs)14:13, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is exactly one vote besides your own in that discussion that explicitly says page views are a legitimate/valid criteria for ITN, rather than simply opposing the addition because it's unnecessary. TheKip(contribs)16:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I count at least three. The Ed17 said "Viewership is a core component of WP:ITNPURPOSE ..."; Levivich said "Of course the TOP25 are major news items..."; Banedon said "...it is still a reason to support". Others opposed any restriction.
Support The repeated claims above that this is covered by Ongoing are mistaken. Ongoing lists Gaza war but that doesn't seem to even mention the freedom flotilla, Greta Thunberg or the latest incident. The timeline has an entry for it but we're strangely not listing the timeline now -- see discussion below. So, with no timeline for this interminable war, we have to report such incidents as blurbs. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As in the past, for an ongoing with a long history and numerous subpages, we don't expect the main entry to be updated daily as long as the appropriate subpages are, which is the case for the timeline. Otherwise, some of those other ongoings would be removed.
And in terms of overall importance to make this separate from the ongoing, this wasn't like ship bring aid under the orders of a national gov't (The story would be far different if, for example, IDF captured an aid ship authorized by the US gov't). This was just civilians (including Greta) taking it on themselves to try to deliver aid despite knowing the blockaid around Gaza. Masem (t) 12:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a subpage of the ongoing entry. To get from the Ongoing entry to the flotilla, you have to locate a navigation template, expand it, find the timeline link, dig down through the tree of timelines and then find the right date within the relevant timeline. This is only feasible if you already know the details and structure -- the casual reader isn't doing all that deep diving when browsing. And the reader who is looking for the topic specifically is going to Google it. So, the point is that this is a specific event that is in the news and ITN's Ongoing is not a practical way of finding it.
As for the flotilla, there seems to be a long history of these going back nearly 20 years. Insofar as they are a type of NGO, that's not a factor. Gaza itself is not a national government but we still cover it.
Frankly, I still wouldn't post it if it wasn't in Ongoing. It simply isn't that impactful or important, it's just a standard naval blockade. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - protests about the war have been happening since day one. This is all ongoing. Some have already been deported. Nfitz (talk) 13:11, 10 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.
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 The article is 70 bytes off from the size minimum. It's so close that I wouldn't oppose IAR posting, but it would help if you expanded the page. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least 12 Palestinians are killed and 29 others are injured by Israeli fire near two aid distribution sites in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli military says they fired warning shots at people who had advanced toward its forces and ignored warnings to turn away but claimed they did not see any casualties. (CTV News)
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.
Nominator's comments: Ukrainian tenor, also transliterated Vladislav Horai, based in Odesa, who appeared internationally, killed in fighting when doing volontary relief work. The English sources focus on the death, - more details about the person would be great. New article as a translation from Ukrainian WP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 10 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.
Hi Schwede66, sir, The HIndu gave the age and mentioned current Bharat Rashtra Samiti (BRS) MLA from Jubilee Hills, which is the constituency he is currently representing. Paid/subscribers can only see full article, so I gave two other reliable citations from News Minute and Telangana Today. Hope that helps! Davidindia (talk) 15:57, 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.
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.
Support article is sourced and has enough prose, have added an additional altblurb1 to potentially swap to after initial blurb. Altblurb pictureHappily888 (talk) 05:49, 9 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.
Oppose For now, they're just protests, violent ones, yes, but protests like those occurring in many places around the world. The National Guard's intervention doesn't directly make it ITN-worthy. When there's a real, long-term impact, we'll assess it. This isn't the place for "announcements," either. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. Calling them "riots" exasterbates the issue, they were small scale protests with a few flare ups and were considered relatively peaceful by LA officials. Unless this actual move to bring in troops creates more problems, it falls under NTRUMP. Masem (t) 12:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NTRUMP and we're not a news ticker. This may be in the headlines worldwide but it's not a mass fatality event and lasting impact doesn't seem likely as things stand. — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good faith nom per above. We don't typically post domestic political issues/events and these protests are no where near the scale that would justify posting at ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trump being fidgety with law enforcement is not something that should decide ITN notability (TRUMPCRUFT etc.), but the protests actually might be noteworthy as a culmination of the mass deportations saga. Gotitbro (talk) 17:30, 8 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.
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: the conflict is still going on, the M23 still has a lot of territory claimed in the DRC and there are updates weekly: "from 26–31 May, 38 civilians—including women and children—were killed in Mutanda groupement under M23 control. At least 543 houses were burned by M23 rebels accusing residents of FDLR ties, while Wazalendo retaliated by torching homes in Butare village, alleging support for M23." –from the 'Timeline of the M23 campaign (2025)'-article Marpissum (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to what Muboshgu has said, the main article is waaaaaaay too details for an encyclopedic summary of the event. It's written from a news perspective, and not breaking the events to something that at least can be readily followed. Masem (t) 16:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was just discussed recently. Since then, it hasn't become more prominent in major news outlets. We can't feature all the currently ongoing conflicts or civil wars in Ongoing. Khuft (talk) 20:40, 8 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.
Israel announces that it killed Asaad Abu Sharia, leader of the Mujahideen Brigades which was responsible for the abductions of several hostages during the October 7 attacks, including Shiri Bibas and her two young sons. (The Times of Israel)
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 heldentenor, who appeared in the world, as Tannhäuser at major opera houses. The article was a stub, expanded translating from de. Obit published 10 June. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 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.
Support I'm sure I'm not eligible to vote since I contributed to this article. However, I have noticed additional media coverage of her death since her initial obit was published which points to notability.
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: European and British super middleweight boxing champion. Short article, but well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 09:38, 9 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.
Question - on the surface this seems very ITN. But at the same time, I don't understand Columbian elections. How is he one of the first candidates to declare, and yet doesn't feature in opinion polls? Was the shooting political - it seems unusual if he's less prominent than over 20 other candidates!~ Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. It's in the polls by his middle name. It probably is ITN in my mind - but the article needs improvements - it pretty brief compared to the well-fleshed out Spanish version. Nfitz (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Query - What is a 'pre-candidate'? It's not a term I'm familiar with. Does it have specific legal or political application in this context? GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-candidate is a person who declares the intention of participating in a election as a candidate or a candidate chosen (before the registration process) by a party to be registered as candidate. ArionStar (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Expanded article still isn't much longer than a stub + he doesn't seem to be an especially-major candidate (seemingly only polling around 3-4%, and the most recent poll had him in 5th place) + he survived. Doesn't meet the bar for ITN. TheKip(contribs)18:04, 9 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 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 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.
To add, we should wait for the men's singles winner tomorrow to post both for these types of events. And that would absolutely require the main 2025 French Open article to be up to par. Masem (t) 03:13, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already adding the altblurb, to emphasize 2025 French Open in bolded instead of biography's article. For posting the blurb, we should wait until after 3pm (Male's singles final) given that Male's singles winner isn't determined yet. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to wait for the men's final, the women's is individually ITN/R. The article is nowhere near ready though, so it's a moot point currently. — Amakuru (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can post the women's but the key article is still the 2025 French Open since that ultimately covers both and that's a way's away (ignoring the absence of the men's winner) Masem (t) 12:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a brief summary of each final in the sub-articles, but it's really brief, and practically nothing except tables in the main article. Black Kite (talk)13:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like many tennis articles, 2025 French Open is junk with no prose and too many tables instead. Sub articles are a bit better but not good enough. We should be encouraging the main article to be fixed, as that's the article on WP:ITNR and that's the one people will mostly be viewing. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:29, 9 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)
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?lang=en)
.jpg){kind=link}
