Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This page provides a forum for editors to suggest items for inclusion on

WP:ERRORS. Archives of past nominations can be found here

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. Under each daily section header below is the transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day (with a light green header). Each day's portal page is followed by a subsection for suggestions and discussion.

A blurb is a one sentence summary of the news story. An alternate suggestion for the blurb is called an altblurb, and any more suggestions get labelled alt1, alt2, etc. A blurb needs at least one target article, highlighted in bold; reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Other articles can also be linked. The Ongoing line is for regularly updated articles which cover events that remain in the news over a longer period of time. RD stands for the "recent deaths" line, and can include any living thing whose death was recently announced. In some cases, recent deaths may need additional explanation as provided by a blurb; this is decided by consensus.

Waheeda Rehman in 2019
Waheeda Rehman

How to nominate an item

In order to suggest a candidate:

  • Update an article to be linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated).
    • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight
      ) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process.
  • Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under the "Suggestions" subheading for the date, emboldening the link in the blurb to the updated article. Use a level 4 header (====) when doing so.
    • Preferably use the template {{
      simple present tense
    • Adding an explanation why the event should be posted greatly increases the odds of posting.
  • Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page.

Purge this page to update the cache

There are criteria which guide the decision on whether or not to put a particular item on In the news, based largely on the extensiveness of the updated content and the perceived significance of the recent developments. These are listed at


Submissions that do not follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news will not be placed onto the live template.


  • Items that have been posted or pulled from the main page are generally marked with (Posted) or (Pulled) in the item's subject so it is clear they are no longer active.
  • Items can also be marked as (Ready) when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post. The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked (Ready), you should remove the mark in the header.

Voicing an opinion on an item

  • Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated.

Please do...

  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. Maybe the previous reviewer has missed a problem, or an identified problem has now been fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes may also help administrators identify items that are ready for promotion to the ITN template on MainPage.
  3. Point out problematic areas in the nominated article and, if appropriate, suggest how to fix them. If you know exactly what to do, by all means, go ahead and fix it as you see fit.

Please do not...

  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!"
    without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached.
  2. Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as
    Conflicts of interest
    are not handled at ITN.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a
    relevant talk page
  6. Use the discussion section of an item as a
    for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome of a nomination and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

A posted ITNC item that needs correcting can be addressed in two ways:

  • Simple updates, such as updated death tolls in a disaster, linking issues, spelling or grammar corrections, or otherwise anything that does not change the intent of the blurb should be discussed at
    in the ITN section.
  • More complex updates that involve a major change in the blurb's intent should be discussed as part of the current ITNC nomination.
Skip to top
Skip to bottom


September 30

Politics and elections


September 29

Armed conflicts and attacks

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

RD: Pat Arrowsmith

Article: Pat Arrowsmith (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian CND

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: English author and peace campaigner. Death announced today. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


(RD Posted) RD: Dianne Feinstein

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: Dianne Feinstein (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): MSNBC The New York Times
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see
Nominator's comments: US Senator from California, former mayor of San Francisco, long electoral history. Ornithoptera (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
I see a handful of unsourced placed in "Early Political Career" but otherwise close. Masem (t) 13:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - estar8806 (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - article seems sourced now. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How do we feel about a blurb? She was a sitting U.S. Senator and a major player in American politics for decades, and remained both up until she died. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell did not get a blurb because people on here thought they weren't internationally known enough (which is crazy), so I don't think she makes the cut. I think McCain got one? RBG definitely did. The blurb guidelines really need some consistency. -- jonas (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § Formalizing a death blurb criterion?Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Covers the entirety of her life in detail; facts are cited. Bremps... 14:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Mastung bombing

Article: 2023 Mastung bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: A suicide bombing kills more than 50 people in Mastung, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Crisis24, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, NY Times, Reuters, Independent

 Ainty Painty (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 2018 bombing killed far more people, but this one is still easily important enough to post. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose only on quality - background needs sourcing and could be expanded just a notch to explain the origin of the hostilities. --Masem (t) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait This is a complex and contentious part of the world, per
    WP:ARBIPA, and no-one has claimed responsibility. We are therefore not in a position to explain who dunnit and so should wait until the speculation resolves. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
It's easily important enough to post, regardless of the ideology or identity of the bomber. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither of the proposed blurbs engages in this kind of speculation, only mentioning "a suicide bomber" without connecting the incident to any ideology or organization. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no hard evidence that it was a suicide bombing. It might have been a proxy bomb, a false flag operation, a premature detonation or other malfunction. It's speculation and jumping to conclusions. See
Note also that
err on the side of caution
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article seems ready. Bremps... 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted per support above.
    [OMT] 05:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

September 28

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Health and environment

Law and crime

Science and technology

(Closed) Rotterdam shootings

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: 2023 Rotterdam shootings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Netherlands, three people are killed in a spree shooting in Rotterdam. (Post)
News source(s): AP
 FatCat96 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • oppose 2 peeps is too few Daikido (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • support A shooting like this is very rare in a country like the Netherlands as well as Europe.
    Coldbolt (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  • Oppose because attacks with this death toll or higher happen every day somewhere. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not in the Netherlands, not in Europe. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We shouldn't post something that's common in some countries just because it's unusual in the country it occurred in. Something like this wouldn't be posted had it happened anywhere in Africa, Asia or the Americas (except perhaps Canada). Jim 2 Michael (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, yes,
    Cryptic 21:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    totally comparable situations. For sure! _-_Alsor (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So what's your bar for what's notable for posting in the US vs. elsewhere? Cryptic makes a valid point that you're not addressing. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is not absolut like that. For example, a strike in the US is more common than a shooting and arson attack in a public place in Europe. So simple, clear and easy to check. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose -- this is not a mass shooting by definition. This is a spree shooting, but at only 3 deaths I don't think it's notable enough for posting on ITN. For me, a bare minimum for posting a shooting is that the event satisfies the criteria of a mass shooting. Aside from that, this type of thing happens everywhere. It is irrelevant that it's happening in the Netherlands instead of another country. Notability is not (or should not) be tied to location. --RockstoneSend me a message! 20:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose appears to be a domestic crime with no ties to terrorism. --Masem (t) 21:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support highly unusual for Europe (unlike, say, the US, or the Disputed Zones of Burkina Faso), and noting that per
    WP:ITNCDONT, Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country. Serial 21:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  • OK then, I don't see how it's more relevant that it took place in the EU vs. in the US. There are many parts of the US with little gun crime. --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But it's something as simple as knowing and understanding that at the national level it is not like that in the US. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Again that's the issue with systemic bias. ITN is already pretty biased towards Europe (and the US) in several regards, so having this be news even though it would not be news in another country absolutely contributes to that bias. Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    this tbh Daikido (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The word news comes from the plural of "new" and means "new things", and usually involves something that "deviates from the norms of everyday happenings". A shooting in Chicago is not news because it's not so unusual, it's not such a deviation from the norm (in fact a lack of shootings in Chicago would be more likely to make the news). Same with terrorism in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Not to say that this particular shooting is newsworthy, but as an explanation of supposed systemic bias, the news is by definition new things that deviate from the norm, which is why a shooting in a low-crime area is more notable than a shooting in a high-crime area. JM2023 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Would support this if it carried weightage (links to terrorism or other high profile relations etc.) but so far that is not the case. The killings in Sweden appear to be at a higher point of notability than these but those too are just the result of local gang wars. We are better off not posting crimes which have no additional significance other than their occurence. Gotitbro (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose and
SNOW close. We shouldn't support something just because of where it happened, even if it carries some weight. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
Oppose per Jalapeño Elisecars727 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Ganira Pashayeva

Article: Ganira Pashayeva (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

 Nemoralis (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


(Posted as RD): Sycamore Gap Tree

Proposed image
Article: Sycamore Gap Tree (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  The Sycamore Gap Tree (pictured) is felled in an act of vandalism. (Post)
News source(s): BBC

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

 Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


Strong Support
RIP Robin Hood Tree. Gone, but not forgotten PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • IAR Post-Posting Support. Yes, the tree may not be dead, but the tree, even if it grows back, will not look the same, and being photogenic is what the tree was known for. So perhaps the tree is not TECHNICALLY dead, but something has certainly been lost here. Just let it ride. This isn't as silly as the duck situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Retrospectively agree with the decision. This tree had massive importance and its felling was an unfortunate and disastrous event, whether it will be able to regrow or not. Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "the duck situation", some of us are in need of an ITN history lesson? JM2023 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was some controversy over if a duck should be posted. The duck didn't end up getting posted and the discussion ended up being closed with no consensus developing. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 20:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The issue there was whether or not the duck actually died rather than controversy about a duck being posted.
    AATalk 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    To be fair that was kind of the situation here too. Is the tree really dead or just chopped down? Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That kinda was part of the issue. I still maintain that a university - nor anyone else - can declare a duck dead in abstentia. At least in this situation we can see the tree, and maybe it's not dead, but it certainly won't be the same. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I personally would've been happier with a blurb. Besides resolving the ambiguity of whether it actually died - we'd just say it was "felled" or "cut down", like our sources do - this tree's felling changed the world, in a way that the deaths of most of the people we blurb, who have been retired for five or ten years, do not. —
    Cryptic 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    Put me down as Oppose Blurb as well per Rockstone a little ways down. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might be in the minority here, but, I think we have taken this a tad too far, with a very open read of “organism”. In some sense it might be a disrespect to the others on the RD carousel as well. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw it might be worthwhile to inspect where the term “organism” came into the template and the criteria. I am reading the past RFCs and it seems like the discussion was very specifically about “Animals”. I think introduction of “organisms” was an overzealous act. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trees were specifically discussed.[1] Thincat (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support and I would IAR support an RD image for this too. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support - The felling of this tree reminds me of The Senator (tree); a 3500 year old bald cypress tree that was destroyed here in central Florida in an act of vandalism (actually, the woman apparently was smoking meth and burned it down, but that's irrelevant). No idea if we posted it to RD at the time, but if it happened today, it would surely qualify. So, too, does this tree, which seems to be of similar importance. RIP. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment we've posted a tree on RD before, if anyone cares. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose Missing ducks and half-dead trees are not "deaths". If the tree was actually dead it would be a support from me, but one rooted still rooted in the ground with quite the possibility of regrowth is not it. DYK would have been the ideal posting for this. Gotitbro (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting support RD, oppose blurb This is a clear and devestating event, but I'm not going so far as to make this a blurb due to, I'm afraid, the systematic bias towards US/UK events in English Wikipedia ITN. As for why I support this being RD, living beings, regardless of them being human or not, should be included. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blurb This is front-page news and it's likely that the tree will grow more shoots, per coppicing. RD is not appropriate for such complex cases. Why can't we just have a few words to summarise the situation? ITN has become far too parsimonious and terse compared to other main page sections and it is obstructing clear communication. Brief blurbs cost nothing. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You repeatedly say that disasters in which dozens of people were killed aren't important enough to blurb, but you're saying that a tree being cut down is?! Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes no sense to blurb the loss of a famous tree. And given that we are purposely blind to RD posting beyond article quality, many of the RDs we post are people that are likely unknown to a good fraction to the readers so being able to click through to read about them is appropriate - same with this case. Masem (t) 13:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consensus to post this has already been established and this has been done. The issue is doing so in a clear and accurate way. There's already a complaint at WP:ERRORS that the RD entry is wrong. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeking for it to be pulled from RD; I'm questioning why you think it blurb-worthy. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me count the ways:
  1. It was the top news story on the BBC yesterday.
  2. It was still a top news item getting continuing coverage in the midday bulletin today
  3. It was on the front pages when I checked the newsstand today. And not just a sidebar – the entire front page.
  4. It got about 150,000 views yesterday. That's about ten times more than the Qaraqosh wedding fire, for example.
  5. The article was written by Dumelow whose work is always excellent in my experience.
  6. This was a Tree of the Year – a rare distinction
  7. There are lots of beautiful and iconic pictures of it and, as a blurb, we could use one (see above).
  8. With blurb text rather than a bare link, we can better explain what has happened
Andrew🐉(talk) 16:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bob Saget & Anne Heche received extremely high pageviews last year. We didn't blurb their deaths. Tree of the Year is a trivial domestic award. You regard this tree being cut down as more notable than the Qaraqosh fire? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's day 3 and the tree is still in the top 10 most read articles on Wikipedia. The wedding fire not so much. The latter seems to be a standard
WP:NEWSEVENT while the tree has got and is getting continuing coverage. For example, this latest development is currently the top read story at BBC News. Other related encyclopedic topics like Hadrian's Wall, Robin Hood and coppicing are getting significantly more attention too. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  • Post-posting support - I would support either the RD or blurb. The tree was technically "felled" but colloquially it is "dead". If someone wants to quibble about it being "dead", then a blurb is the way to go.
EvergreenFir (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose / pull Not dead. It's a species that's notable for being receptive to coppicing. Also, shoehorning this into a section for people (and occasionally animals) who've actually recently died also seems a bit tasteless to me. I love trees, I get that people love trees, but there's a place for this, and this isn't it. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pull / Oppose blurb Not dead, and there's no reason a tree should get a blurb if literal ethnic cleansing of 90,000+ people doesn't. That's pretty much adding insult to injury. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • STRONG OPPOSE BLURB - for the avoidance of all doubt, I'm fine with an RD entry, but a blurb is ridiculous, and if we did blurb this, it'd be the biggest example of systemic UK bias on ITN that I can think of (no, we would not be blurbing this if it happened anywhere else). --RockstoneSend me a message! 23:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • pull. i think there was a consensus to post early on, when many of us had believed that the tree had died, but now that it is clear that the tree had only been felled, and also has a decent chance of regrowing, i don't think it is appropriate to keep it in the list of recent deaths. to be clear, had the tree actually died, i would have thought that its death would have been appropriate for the list.
    the arguments that the tree is effectively dead enough for the list make me worried, as they could also be used to argue that people in deep comas who may be described as "virtually dead", or that people who underwent extensive plastic surgery who may be described as "virtually unrecognizable", would also be eligible for the list. keeping the tree on the list may validate those arguments and set a weird precedent.
    i don't think posting a blurb would be a wise idea. it seems farcical to refuse a blurb for a prominent senator who recently died, only to then turn around and post one for a tree that didn't. dying (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb It's obviously contentious to post this as RD as technically, the tree isn't dead. The qualifier "(felled)" has been added but for many, that's still not good enough. The status quo works for me, but my preference is to have this as a blurb. Firstly, this is a notable event that's making the news around the world. Secondly, it has a lasting effect, as the area has lost a major tourism item. Thirdly, it overcomes the conundrum whether or not this fits under RD as a blurb can explain in a more nuanced way what's going on. Fourthly, I do not buy into the systemic UK bias issue. That Wanaka Tree got vandalised in 2020 but the tree itself is still standing. Had it been cut down back then, Wānaka would have lost its most-photographed item and I suggest that would have been suitable for a blurb nomination (granted, the UK tree is probably better known). That's a tourism item and some Kiwis might say "so what?". But if something fatal happened to Tāne Mahuta, New Zealand would go into mourning for a week, that's for sure. Schwede66 01:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there any scenario where a tree being cut down in the US would be posted here in ITN? No. Same if it happened in Canada or Russia. The UK gets special treatment in ITN and the systemic bias here has been a problem for years. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting conditional support RD. Regardless of whether it could regrow, it is the end of the tree as we know it. The regrown part would be a new thing/offspring. On the person analogy, you have chopped off everything except the head and put that in a magical vial where it can regrow; 90% is already dead. The fact that the stump is alive and could facilitate regrowth is irrelevant.
    I support converting to blurb and removing the RD equally, as a blurb would also make this known. To clarify, the condition is that there is no blurb posted. I think either we post a blurb or keep the RD. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aaron Liu, i am not sure if i am understanding you correctly. are you saying that, if a notable person with a quality article on wikipedia was reduced to a head in a magical vial, you would support listing that person at recent deaths? if that person then died a year later, would you support a second nomination for that person, assuming that the article remains of sufficient quality? dying (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that the stump is alive is absolutely relevant. It is "recent deaths", not "recent end of organisms as we know them". Should Michael Schumacher have been posted to RD? ChaotıċEnby(talk) 14:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pull from RD. The tree could regrow, but we should wait until it is confirmed that the tree is dead. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pull. Tree can't die.
If this was blurb, I would understand its proposal.
But this is dubious — recent deaths entry Tree (felled). As if someone wonders how tree can tree actually die. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: Michael Gambon

Proposed image
Article: Michael Gambon (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Irish actor Michael Gambon dies at age 82. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, AP, CNN

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Possible blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


support blurb once the issues are fixed, clearly a more notable individual. we've posted that guy who played Snape i think. we should post Dumbledore too since he was arguably a more important character Daikido (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alan Rickman was actually posted to RD only.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(RD posted, continue blurb discussion) RD: M. S. Swaminathan

Proposed image
Article: M. S. Swaminathan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Times of India
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Father of Green revolution in India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


  • Support: Article looks good. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blurb?. I do not say this often, but, is there an appetite (no pun intended) for blurbing this article? If there has been anyone who has helped millions from hunger and famine, it is him. NYTimes Bio here. Irrespective this is ready for RD. Article looks in good shape. Ktin (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • RD posted Blurb discussion can continue.—Bagumba (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blurb His name is not familiar to most and so RD would not do him justice. And it's not as if ITN is overcrowded currently – there are only three blurbs and they are 4+ days old. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't this a good reason not to blurb? Blurbs should be reserved for well known figures or if the death is the reason for notability. Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is terms like “well known figures” or “not familiar to most” borders on a very ethnocentric read of the world and is not the best way to evaluate impact. If you believe importance and weightage needs to be given to transformational impact — we should evaluate the impact of work. In this case there is a case to be made that elevating millions from hunger and famine is impact like no other. Ktin (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know the name Norman Borlaug, who is given credit for saving those same lives. As the saying goes, "Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan." I don't know how much credit should go to Swaminathan here, but he was not the primary driver of this effort. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The “I don’t know” of them and hence not worth posting argument is frankly a tad tenuous.
I certainly don’t imply that we should go by a particularly news org, like Time in this case, but posting from the article — “ In 1999, he was one of three Indians, along with Gandhi and Tagore, on Time's list of the 20 most influential Asian people of the 20th century.” Certainly that should mean something. Ktin (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am neutral on this person, but was just commenting that his name is not familiar to most does not seem like a good reason to blurb someone. I don't know if ITN has a purpose to "highlight" lesser known figures in blurbs. Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
isn't ITN meant to highlight news stories relevant enough to receive their own articles or at least significant sections? so posting something with the justification of basically "he's not well known"... well that's really the opposite of a justification, isn't it. JM2023 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. I agree with both of you. We should not be posting because the subject was not well-known. On the other hand, we should not be not-posting because the subject was not well-known. There are many Rfcs that are pending on this topic, but, as it stands today, with our current policies — we should posting major figures who have demonstrated impact by their work. Call it transformational / groundbreaking / anything else. By those grounds, I think the subject deserves a blurb. We should not mistake opposes to the policy to be opposes to the individual case such as this. Policy opposes should go to the talk page. Ktin (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like an argument against blurb. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For a blurb I feel the article needs a short section under Public Recognition about the green revolution which can borrow content from that article. His role is mentioned in the lede and scattered through but a single brief section of how he came by that term and what it means ands impact on India's ag industry should be clear.--Masem (t) 15:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blurb blurbs of deaths in my opinion should only be done when the deaths themselves are famous -- all famous people die, but not all people die famously JM2023 (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Appreciate your point of view. The editor below references an RfC that has been some time in coming. In its absence, today, we do not distinguish between famous (sic) people dying and famous people dying famously. Best wishes. Ktin (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral on blurb, would highlight the life of someone with a little-known but massive impact on the fight against hunger, although I agree that blurbs of deaths could be reserved for the deaths themselves making news. I'd say we should have a RfC about this last point, to have an idea of where we stand relative to this in the future (and, depending on the result, Support if non-famous deaths of famous people can be blurbed and Oppose otherwise). Chaotic Enby (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciate it. I know that the RfC has been sometime in coming, but, in its absence, I think there is a strong case to be made for this posting. Ktin (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For reference,

The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb.

Bagumba (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
I know, and given the repeated discussions (a few days ago with Giorgio Napolitano, now today) often in confusion without clear indication as to what level of notability merits a blurb, I figure it would be better to formalize this more clearly. Chaotic Enby (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support blurb given the current policies until such a discussion concludes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb Certainly transformative and at the top of his field. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support blurb Article being a GA pushes this over the edge for me. Absolutely top of his field. Curbon7 (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Agree with Curbon here, being a GA definitely does it and we did post Norman Borlaug, it is only good that we follow in with a quality article which highlights thr further building upon his work. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blurb What RD is for. Making it a blurb would add nothing. As a GA it's still prominently linked in the RD section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per above. RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. Nigej (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    With due respect, please can you explain why RD is sufficient in this case? Ktin (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per above. RD is sufficient in nearly all cases, including this one. (see above for attribution for this comment)  — Amakuru (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, with due respect Amakuru, please can you explain why RD is sufficient in this case? Ktin (talk) 08:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dissolution of the Republic of Artsakh

Article: Republic of Artsakh (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh declares its intent to dissolve (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh declares its intent to dissolve, following its capitulation to Azerbaijani forces and the flight of its population.
News source(s): APal-Jazeera

Nominator's comments: Related articles such as 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh have been continuously updated; major update in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict; follows precedent.

  • Comment This is clearly a developing story with multiple implications that merit inclusion on their own, so ongoing is completely justified even though it's a bit challenging to find the right article to post.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As the Republic of Artsakh article is oranged-tagged, perhaps an article on the decree itself could be created and added to the blurb. A historic milestone in the decades-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict anyway. The future departure of Russian peacekeepers from the region would probably be the final milestone. Brandmeistertalk 10:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait until it actually happens. The decree states that all state institutions will dissolve by January 1st, and I think we're a bit off from that date. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 11:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait per Iamstillqw3rty. We have three months until it happens, and its clear this region is not currently stable, so things can easily change. --Masem (t) 12:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment can we somehow merge this proposal with this one below for the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh? It's effectively the same event, the dissolution of the breakaway state with the expulsion of its people. JM2023 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge with below proposal. This story really only makes sense in the context of the fleeing of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as Artsakh exists largely because of this group of people. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, if possible also merge per suggestions above. Major development. Yakikaki (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait Until it actually dissolves, then, I'll switch to Support. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait - Once this actually happens and Azerbaijan actually annexes Artsakh then I would instantly support. Resolution of a 30 year conflict, major change in global geopolitics as a country annexes another country. If situation gains enough coverage and enough new developments happen then I think we could post now. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merge with the current Artsakh ethnic cleansing blurb, perhaps by simply adding as the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh declares its intent to dissolve at the end of it. (According to the end of the discussion for that blurb, the potential merge should be discussed here.) JM2023 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support News will be stale if we wait too long. Bremps... 01:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, dissolution of a country - even a non-internationally recognized one - is a significant event. Oppose merging with the existing blurb; ethnic cleansing is so significant it shouldn't be diluted with other news. BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    the dissolution of Artsakh, the nation-state of the Karabakh Armenians, is part of the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Armenians from their nation-state's territory. The nation-state is dissolving because the nation is being ethnically cleansed. JM2023 (talk) 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah but like. The ethnic cleansing blurb got removed. So not really sure about merging to non-existence... Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support given the standalone significance, shouldn't be merged with the blurb relative to ethnic cleansing simply because both are about the same country. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    the dissolution of a nation's state is inexorably linked to the exile of that nation from that state's territory. Artsakh is being dissolved because and as part of the ethnic cleansing. JM2023 (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree to some extent, but the point is moot given that the other blurb has been removed without any discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since the point is moot, I've proposed alt-blurb 1. Given that the flight is no longer on the front page I think there is a clear consensus here to post. BilledMammal (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Massive development. Kirill C1 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Antimatter falls down

Proposed image
Article: ALPHA experiment (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The ALPHA experiment (pictured) shows that antimatter falls down in gravity, like normal matter. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The ALPHA experiment (pictured) shows that antimatter does fall down in gravity, like normal matter.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The ALPHA experiment (pictured) shows that antimatter, like normal matter, falls down in gravity.
News source(s): BBC, Guardian, Nature, NYT, Scientific American, Times

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This is a fine bit of fundamental physics – comparable with Newton and the apple. It hasn't been possible to check this before because apple-sized lumps of antimatter don't exist. But I'm not seeing any update yet and so there's work to do here too. ... (later) ... Drbogdan has kindly provided an update. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, we have some cool science-related stories recently! I like this one, but as Andrew says, an update is needed. And some references are missing, I see. Tone 09:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support pending update. It's clearly a significant discovery of high encyclopedic value.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose While we should feature more scientific stories, I don't see this as a revolutionary discovery, just more a confirmation of what was expected to happen. --Masem (t) 12:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - No update, big unsourced sections, and I too question the relevance of this as confirms what most scientist suspected. If antimatter did "fall up" it would be a different story mike_gigs talkcontribs 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Confirms what most scientists suspected" can still be significant. The
    Higgs Boson was widely believed to exist, and we blurbed the experiment that proved as much. Kurtis (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
  • support its cool Daikido (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong support - Yes, assumptions of what was expected to happen were confirmed, but one has to realize that when it comes to science - especially theoretical physics - this is a very, very big deal. We can theorize and hypothesize all day long with the best scientific knowledge we have on hand, but it doesn't take but one actual, in-the-wild observation to completely demolish a theory that looks good on paper. We need to publish more stories like this. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality The first two sections after the lead paragraph are totally unsourced, as is most of the third. Just out of interest, a question for anyone more knowledgeable - why wouldn't anti-matter react to gravity in the same way as matter? Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If the proper article -
      Cryptic 14:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    This was predicted but scientists don't assume when they can check. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose is this against what the consensus expected to happen? as far as I can remember, the only known difference between matter and antimatter is the electric charge. It is really such big news that one type of baryonic matter falls down just like another type of baryonic matter? What would really be news is if it didn't fall down like normal. JM2023 (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Not that this isn't a useful discovery, but I question the interest readers may have in what is effectively the null hypothesis being sustained. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose A great scientific discovery, I'm sure, but not sure if it's important enough for ITN, plus a lot of unsourced items. Editor 5426387 (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support This nomination will probably fail, but it seems like a relatively important confirmation, even if it's not a surprise. This is also one of those rare headline fundamental physics experiments whose result is understandable and memorable to the average person (the detailed article less so, but that's to be expected). (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on quality but support on importance. Even if it's the predicted result, confirmation is important. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 16:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on significance, as the gravitational interaction of antimatter article explains, this was the subject of considerable debate (hey, maybe antimatter is the opposite of matter in all ways?) and having tested it is a big advance. No opinion on article quality. The primary article could potentially be moved to the gravitational interaction of antimatter article, which only has a few CNs. Blythwood (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support - Huge achievement in Physics, a lot of implications, interesting story that is a change of pace from the usual stuff, In The News PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support when the article is adequately ref'd. Davey2116 (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support in principle Most science is not "sexy science" à la The God Particle, but as IP/ states above this is an important confirmation even it was somewhat expected. I have not looked at the article's quality, so am not commenting on that. Curbon7 (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support it would've been a huge shock if antimatter didn't fall down, but even verifying that it falls down is a notable result. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per Banedon. Double sharp (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment — No opinion on posting as I don't have the scientific knowledge to judge how significant this is. But I really dislike "[subject] does [verb]" constructions, because they're usually awkward and their infrequency can mean those skimming them read "[subject] doesn't [verb]," which is a much more familiar construction. Removing "does" also simply makes it more concise. I've added an alt blurb as such. I also moved "like normal matter" to avoid
    MOS:SOB issues. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 06:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
Weak Oppose I don't really think this all that notable. Antimatter was always said to have the same properties of normal matter. But if we are to post it can we please use blurb that doesn't say "fall down?" I know that's how most people think of gravity but its not really accurate. I suggest we quote the article and say something like. "The ALPHA experiment shows that antimatter particles behave in a similar way as normal matter in a gravitational field." I understand that's a bit wordy but it is more accurate. Aure entuluva (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The thing about science is that "well, we always knew that would happen" doesn't mean very much to a scientist. The boundary of theoretical physics is that you can't develop a working theory unless you are able to test a hypothesis such that it can empirically be proven or disproven. What we might regard as restating the obvious (which come on, how many of us here are experts in antimatter?) is in this case another step towards building a rigorous body of evidence, and this experimental outcome is truly a big step. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 12:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RD: John Tembo

Article: John Tembo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Malawi24

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Attempting to get a broader range of RD nominees (see this). RFBailey (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


(Posted) RD: Aziz Pahad

Article: Aziz Pahad (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): SABC

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Attempting to get a broader range of RD nominees (see this). RFBailey (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


September 27

Armed conflicts and attacks

Arts and culture

Business and economy

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

September 26

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

Law and crime

Politics and elections

(Posted) Iraq wedding fire

Article: Qaraqosh wedding fire (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 100 people are killed in a fire at a wedding in Qaraqosh, Iraq. (Post)
News source(s): BBC CNN AP News

Nominator's comments: More than 100 people have tragically lost their lives in a wedding fire in Iraq. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 08:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Building fires are very common and that's why most places routinely have fire stations to attend to them. Per
    WP:NEWSEVENT, we require "something further [which] gives them additional enduring significance." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
A small fraction of 1% of building fires have death tolls of over 100. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah yes, over a hundred people dying in a building fire is certainly common and planned for.
The callousness of this comment stuns me. The Kip 16:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually agree with Andrew to a degree. Not to dismiss the death over one hundred ppl, but in the grand scheme of things, it seems unlikely that this event will have any long reaching impact, compared to something like the Grendell tower fire from a few years back. We (not just ITN) have become too focused on current events forgetting about the entire work not being a newspaper per NOTNEWS. There are both natural amd man-made disasters that happen all the time, but few have suffently long tails of influence to be appropriate for an encyclopedic article, and we are losing our discretion for this. Masem (t) 16:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imagine it'd happened in the
developed world. This article would be multiple times longer & have been edited by several times more people. It would've been posted hours ago. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
It really depends, and I do think we need (as a whole not just ITN) to keep in mind the regional systematic bias of news coverage when it comes to unfortunate events like this. This is the whole NOTNEWS problem we have because few are looking at the big picture. Masem (t) 19:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shouldn't copy the Western-centrism of much of the media. Had this fire happened in Europe, it'd be a huge news story. Had the Grenfell Tower fire happened in the Middle East, it wouldn't have received a tenth of the media coverage it did, and the vast majority of people wouldn't have heard of it. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well for one thing, (not to quote the joker but) some things are "according to plan" in the sense that they are not unexpected, while other things are "not according to plan" in the sense that they are unexpected. For example, there have been thousands of terrorist attacks in the middle east, yet the proportion of coverage they receive is miniscule; accordingly, a failure of safety that kills dozens in Iraq is considered less notable than a failure of safety that kills dozens in Britain because the Iraq version is not so unexpected. It is expected that Britain not only has less deadly accidents of this nature, but also that Britain has more rigourous safety standards and enforcement of those standards, a higher quality of life and a safer society... while Iraq is expected to have lower safety standards and higher danger. Britain is, as they say, a developed country in the developed world, so these things are highly unusual, whereas in an undeveloped or developing or war-torn poor country they are not considered to be so unusual, and thus considered less newsworthy. JM2023 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An accidental fire, killing over 100 civilians, isn't expected anywhere in the world. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
but as i said, such a thing is more expected in a poor terrorist-wracked developing country with low safety standards, and less expected in a rich highly-policed developed country with high safety standards, which is why things like Grenfell are given more prominence than things like this. JM2023 (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't agree that it's at all expected anywhere. Accidental fires in buildings with triple-digit death tolls are rare everywhere. I think this is the only one in the world this year. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being sad is not a factor in significance, and your comment is an inappropriate overreaction to a basic explanation of Wikipedia guidelines. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ITN posts news stories far more often than topics that are in the news. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would you have decided not to post the The Station nightclub fire of 2003? Because this is essentially that, down to the use of pyrotechnics lighting inflammable materials. Not posting this is obvious systemic bias, especially since we posted the Grenfell tower fire. --RockstoneSend me a message! 04:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said that you couldn't see how Grenfell could have a long-term effect; it's been proven to have had major long-term effects. We don't know if they'll be a long-term effect from this fire or not, which is the case for most events posted to ITN. It's not a requirement for posting. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But knowing whether it has a long-term effect is a requirement for having an article. Whether posting P&G violating articles to the main page is acceptable is a matter up for debate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Over 100 people were killed by fireworks being lit indoors, igniting illegal cladding. That'll have a long-term effect. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
somehow I doubt it will generate the sort of debates and public awareness that Grenfell did. The same way terrorism in Iraq is treated differently by the public than terrorism in Britain. JM2023 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Grenfell & Qaraqosh fires were fuelled by highly flammable, illegal cladding. The reactions will be similar, though Qaraqosh will receive less media coverage. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? Like what major long-term effects? Remember, I am looking for major long-term international effects, and changing one building material that most people cannot even name is not such an effect. Banedon (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • information Administrator note I have removed the "Ready" from the nomination header as there is nothing close to consensus to post as of right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support It is definitely an unordinary fire accident when it kills over a hundred people. Unless we have decided to stop posting disasters completely (which the recent postings show is not the case) I don't think why this should not be as well. Gotitbro (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Despite the fact it appears to be a domestic incident, a death toll of more than 100 people is extraordinary rare.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I should have said minute not second – thanks for the correction. By my calculation, it's 104/minute but that's based on 2019 stats. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wish there were more news articles about the majority of those 55 million people that die every year that could be considered for posting. You're welcome to nominate the alarming surge in the prevalence of deaths caused by heart diseases. I'd like to see a way to accommodate more such stories on ITN in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I made a page called "links to my website", that doesn't mean we should refocus Wikipedia to allow links to my website. The same goes for news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posting per consensus above with the improved quality of the article.
    [OMT] 18:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

Nagorno-Karabakh explosion

Article: Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 125 people are killed by a fuel depot explosion in Berkadzor, Nagorno-Karabakh, as they flee from the invading Azerbaijani forces. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Against the backdrop of the Azerbaijani invasion, 125 refugees are killed in a fuel explosion in Berkadzor, Nagorno-Karabakh

Nominator's comments: 125 is quite a lot, especially in a (relatively speaking) developed region in Europe --Daikido (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose on quality. Article is a stub and definitely can be expanded. No opinions on significance for now, will revote later after expansion. S5A-0043Talk 07:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality. Definitely notable enough for ITN but the article is far from ready. Johndavies837 (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with the #Flight of Karabakh Armenians proposal below. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added a question below, asking whether the blurb on the exodus story (which seems to be getting more attention) should mention the explosion as well. (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Careful to maintain NPOV on this highly contentious item PrecariousWorlds (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) Dadasaheb Phalke Award

Proposed image
Article: Waheeda Rehman (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: Waheeda Rehman is awarded the Dadasaheb Phalke Award. (Post)
News source(s): Hindustan Times Times of India

The nominated event is listed on
ITNR film awards. She is awarded with India's highest award in the field of cinema. User:PrinceofPunjab (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply

A handful of paragraphs in Acting Career are undersourced (long passages w/o any source or paragraphs ending w/o a citation) Masem (t) 03:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ThaddeusB doesn't edit much now and explains on their user page that they mainly "got burned out on dealing with nasty people". AlexTiefling hasn't edited for five years but it's not clear why. The other three editors still seem active. As for TRM, their topic ban was closed initially as "no consensus" but then there was a do-over. "Consensus" on Wikipedia is certainly "rough". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To add: Although it looks like, although there was consensus to add it to ITNR, it got little notice or coverage. I don't oppose an IAR not posting, assuming we would then remove it from ITNR. --RockstoneSend me a message! 08:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if it isn't posted, that shouldn't result in automatic removal. There should be a discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Article looks good to me which is the only thing that should matter for ITNR. While the
    WP:ITNR (only serves good that non-frequent ITNR items are brought forth to our attention). Gotitbro (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
Comment I should point out that Variety, an American publication, published an article[2] about the award. I don't know if one non-Indian publication is enough to consider it in the news, but it's something to take into consideration. Elipticon (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak support While I can certainly see the rationale for an IAR oppose, at the end of the day, Bollywood is huge and this award is its top honor. Makes sense to me. The Kip 16:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. A re-visiting of film awards at ITN/R in general would be great, but I see no reason to oppose here. Bollywood is huge - I'd guess the 2nd biggest film center in the world? If anything, maybe we remove Filmfare, because that's also a Bollywood award and seemingly less significant then this one. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted briefly, then realised there's are a few paragraphs in the middle lacking a single reference. Stephen 01:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Stephen: Add citations for the bits that were missing them. Should be fine now I believe. Gotitbro (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Referencing and wordings have been improved since yesterday.
    To all opposing the ITNR entry of DPA; this is a wrong forum. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. ITNR. Article seems to be in good nick. Ktin (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Posted Stephen 23:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Post-posting oppose hard to believe this was supported despite not posting any other national film awards (i.e. Golden Rooster), even harder to believe it was posted with its own image, despite the fact that there is an actual ethnic cleansing going on in the same ITN block, you would think that would merit a photo more than one of a woman winning a rather obscure one-nation film award. JM2023 (talk) 06:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you have any issue with other national film awards not being posted, then nominate those awards. And calling the Dadasaheb Phalke Award "obscure" and not the "Golden Rooster" sounds like western-centrism. Tube·of·Light 09:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would argue that any national film awards (Canadian Junos, British BAFTAs, Chinese Golden Rooster), and even the Oscars, are too obscure for ITN, considering the magnitude of other current events which are life-or-death, science-progressing, or geopolitics-altering, but that's just me (and I'm sure there are various RfCs that go against my personal opinions, but this is for context for my views). Regardless, as @Sahaib said, the Golden Rooster Awards weren't posted despite China being just as populous as India, so there could be an argument for consistency. Moot discussion anyway considering it's been posted JM2023 (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Coming from someone who used the term "Mentally retarded" in an article your idea of "western-centrism" is just like that term... 2A00:23C7:DB80:A101:E496:82FE:7B01:884A (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    you're responding to the wrong person JM2023 (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Posted) RD: Brooks Robinson

Article: Brooks Robinson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ESPN

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

 – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


(Reposted) Flight of Karabakh Armenians

Proposed image
the region falls to an Azerbaijani offensive.
News source(s): Barrons, Armenpress, CNN, Aljazeera, The Guardian, CNBC, France24, DW, Bloomberg, AP, Reuters


Nominator's comments: Latest number is 28,120 have already reached Armenia. The number is growing incredibly fast, as the line of cars waiting to enter is said to be 24 hours of wait time. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Eternal Flame – in memory of the one and a half million sanctified victims of the 1915 Armenian Genocide"
  • This is obviously not a recent death, so I copied the wrong template. Can someone please tweak it to fix this? Thanks, I don't see where I went wrong. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    you gotta remove the "recent deaths" parameter (along with the ITNR one too, since thats' reserved for yearly recurring stuff liek the oscars) Daikido (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe someone should create an article about the Azeri bombing of a gas station/reserve/storage that has killed mroe than a hundred people already with many more severely injured too? that happened yesterday Daikido (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Azerbaijan being behind it is completely unfounded conjecture at this point. Mooonswimmer 21:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose we already had an ITN heading about the conflict, so covered by the other blurb. Editor 5426387 (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other blurb appears to have rolled off.
Seems like some of the more egregious users here have at the very least departed temporarily, so I'm coming back to ITN. Support - This involves the plight of tens of thousands of people, fleeing from their homeland in what many folks have dubbed an ethnic cleansing. People are dying too; nearly 70 people were killed in a gas station explosion while leaving, which also left 105 injured; a lone disaster like that would have gotten posted here on ITN. Additionally, receiving extensive mainstream coverage. I think this outlines three out of the four
WP:ITNPURPOSEs - the only issue is that it would likely be best to create a seperate, quality article. — Knightoftheswords 02:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
Welcome back Knight! PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wait but leaning support. It's not entirely clear how big of a deal this is going to become. But early indications suggest it might evolve into a major humanitarian crisis. There are claims that most of the ethnic Armenians fear political and religious persecution with many either already heading for the border or making plans to flee. A standalone article is likely justified. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Yes, we just posted a blurb, but it has already rolled off, and I feel the blurb failed to do this event justice. This is a war that has been going on and off for the last 30 years, and it appears to be approaching its climax. There is a huge refugee crisis, and negotiations are taking place between Artsakh and Azerbaijan that will probably result in an Azerbaijani annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh. This is big news. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 05:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Receiving significant coverage, and certainly has a major impact. Not 100% sure if posting now is appropriate, but it's seems significant enough at least. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror 05:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment While I think this is certainly a postable event now, it may be better to wait until we have a fuller picture, especially considering the dissolution of the NKR seems inevitable at this point [3]. Curbon7 (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support per mine and BilledMammal's comments; possibly combine with the Nagorno-Karabakh fuel depot explosion nomination above. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. The ethnic cleansing is more newsworthy than the inevitable annexation, but when the annexation does come there is no reason we can't also post that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose technically, as there's no specific article to bold and the
    2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes have already been posted earlier. Brandmeistertalk 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    Created Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, if anyone wants to expand it to ITN quality it would be amazing! Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support extremely relevant, should be in the news. Thousands of people are fleeing and the number rises each day. - Kevo327 (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ongoing This started as a special military operation which rapidly became a ceasefire and now we have a large rush of refugees. Who knows what tomorrow may bring? As this is a long-running conflict which is now fast-moving, it should be an entry in Ongoing. BTW, I happened to notice a new memorial here yesterday and took a picture which seems topical. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)Reply[reply]
  • Support Massive population flight regrettably caused by an attempt at ethnic cleansing. Having an Ongoing item would also be a possibility, although we'd need a separate article either for the timeline or for the aftermath (maybe Aftermath of the Nagorno-Karabakh offensive?) as the military conflict itself has ended. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should also have an article for the Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, given the notability and importance of the event itself. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The best article to cover all aspects seems to be Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    True if we want an ongoing item, but too vague for this specific blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support but combine seems logical to also incorporate the explosion and general conflict articles into one blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose.
    WP:NPOV. Presentation is not neutral. Should be not "attacked by Azerbaijan", but something like "after a military operation by Azerbaijan". Grandmaster 13:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
    ^ Yep PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All of the statements by Europe and the United States support the word attacked, as well as most news articles, so calling it an "operation" like Azerbaijan did would actually be the opposite of NPOV. RaffiKojian (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As usual, they paint only half of the picture. This was preceded by several recent landmine explosions in the region that killed at least 18 people (which was one of the triggers of the offensive), so there's a question of who attacked whom first. Brandmeistertalk 14:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:NPOV given what the sources actually say. Chaotic Enby (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
This is currently moot anyway as there's no eligible target article for the main page. Brandmeistertalk 17:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1948 Palestinian exodus was renamed we may need to move it to to Expulsion and flight of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. I also agree with Chaotic Enby that we should reflect reliable sources, who don't give much credence to Azerbaijani claims of Armenia starting the renewed conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply
The clashes were already posted once, I'm not sure subsections are also eligible as targets. The proposed blurb currently doesn't include the subsection. Brandmeistertalk 18:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subsections are eligible, and there is no rule against posting the same article twice if circumstances warrant it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For context I originally named it "Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians" but it was renamed. Don't have too much time myself unfortunately but I'll be happy if anyone can expand it! Chaotic Enby (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One needs to be careful with the term "expulsion", as it implies the use of force to drive a group of people away. That may or may not be the case here, but coming to a definitive conclusion would certainly require reliable sources. By comparison, "flight" and "exodus" seem uncontroversial and more-or-less interchangeable. (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 25

Armed conflicts and attacks

Disasters and accidents

International relations

Law and crime

RD: Eugenio Calabi

Article: Eugenio Calabi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques,
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Very notable mathematician, undoubtedly one of the most recognizable names in contemporary geometry and well-known to physicists as well. The fact that his surname occurs three times in the geometry article and 15 times in string theory says something. Has numerous mathematical objects named after him (Calabi conjecture, Calabi–Yau manifold, Calabi flow, Calabi triangle, Calabi–Eckmann manifold) and even a play. Unfortunately, has a tagged section that needs reference work. (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply


If there's a need for it I could fix up the research section without too much trouble. (I wrote it so I'm familiar with the content) Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gumshoe2: That would be great. Once enough secondary sources are added to remove the tag, I think this will be ready to post to the main page under "Recent deaths". (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Closed) Anthony Rota resignation

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.

Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada Anthony Rota resigns after leading applause of ex-Nazi Yaroslav Hunka during Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy's parliamentary visit.
News source(s): Globe and Mail

Nominator's comments: I think we post major resignations? --Daikido (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose We should not. As Wikipedia isn’5 a local news agency, we should never include the resignation of national non-executive or non-head of office positions. Even when it is a matter of global embarrassment such as this.
_-_Alsor (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, if you scroll up and read the meager couple of paragraphs describing what is and what isn't to be posted here, you'd learn that this place is precisely for stuff that's 5 a local news agency - for stuff that's In the news, idk where u live but that story has been the main story in the news forthe past 2 days where i live Daikido (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clean Support, I feel like Zelenskyy's visit being involved in the original fiasco and Poland and Russia joining in on the outrage both push this into the 'international' category. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: David McCallum

Article: David McCallum (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s):

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

Nominator's comments: Scottish actor well known for The Man from U.N.C.L.E. and NCISHiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply