🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates
Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Skip to top
Skip to bottom
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox
Shortcut

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Philip Pierre in 2025
Philip Pierre

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

[edit]
  • Blurbs are one-sentence summaries of the news story.
    • Altblurbs, labelled alt1, alt2, etc., are alternative suggestions to cover the same story.
    • A target article, bolded in text, is the focus of the story. Each blurb must have at least one such article, but you may also link non-target articles.
  • Articles in the Ongoing line describe events getting continuous coverage.
  • The Recent deaths (RD) line includes any living thing whose death was recently announced. Consensus may decide to create a blurb for a recent death.

All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality.

Nomination steps

[edit]
  • Make sure the item you want to nominate has an article that meets our minimum requirements and contains reliable coverage of a current event you want to create a blurb about. We will not post about events described in an article that fails our quality standards.
  • Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). Do not add sections for new dates manually – a bot does that for us each day at midnight (UTC).
  • Create a level 4 header with the article name (==== Your article here ====). Add (RD) or (Ongoing) if appropriate.
Then paste the {{ITN candidate}} template with its parameters and fill them in. The news source should be reliable, support your nomination and be in the article. Write your blurb in simple present tense. Below the template, briefly explain why we should post that event. After that, save your edit. Your nomination is ready!
  • You may add {{ITN note}} to the target article's talk page to let editors know about your nomination.

The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Pick an older item to review near the bottom of this page, before the eligibility runs out and the item scrolls off the page and gets abandoned in the archive, unused and forgotten.
  2. Review an item even if it has already been reviewed by another user. You may be the first to spot a problem, or the first to confirm that an identified problem was fixed. Piling on the list of "support!" votes will help administrators see what is ready to be posted on the Main Page.
  3. Tell about problems in articles if you see them. Be bold and fix them yourself if you know how, or tell others if it's not possible.

Please do not...

[edit]
Shortcut
  1. Add simple "support!" or "oppose!" votes without including your reasons. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are not helpful. A vote without reasoning means little for us, please elaborate yourself.
  2. Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. We post a lot of such content, so these comments are generally unproductive.
  3. Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). We at ITN do not handle conflicts of interest.
  4. Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
  5. Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
  6. Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.

Suggesting updates

[edit]

There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:

  • Anything that does not change the intent of the blurb (spelling, grammar, markup issues, updating death tolls etc.) should be discussed at WP:Errors.
  • Discuss major changes in the blurb's intent or very complex updates as part of the current ITNC nomination.

Structure

[edit]

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.

To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

December 6

[edit]

RD: Michael Annett

[edit]
Article: Michael Annett (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jayski Motorsport.com
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Stock car racing driver known for racing in NASCAR's Cup and O'Reilly Auto Parts Series. Hironi10 (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

[edit]

Remove El Fasher massacre from ongoing

[edit]
Article: El Fasher massacre (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: Most recent updates to the article are related to the subsequent refugee crisis, rather than the late October / early November massacre itself. A separate discussion about adding the broader second Darfur genocide article to ongoing might be warranted. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Gaza War from ongoing

[edit]
Article: Gaza war (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: It seems that the peace plan is holding. If we check pages like Reuters or BBC, related news nowadays are just about the aftermath of the war or mere political bickering; there are no more bellic reports to report. Similarly, edits in the last week to the articles have largely been copyediting and trivial adds, nothing about a war going on or the article being heavily edited. It is stale news and no longer of ongoing interest. Cambalachero (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added comment: Many people ae likely to reply "Wait, [Israel]/[Hamas] did something bad to some [Arab]/[Israeli], this has not ended". That's the underlying Arab–Israeli conflict, that existed since many decades ago and will continue after this war. The ongoing is not about it, but about a specific military conflict. Claims that this is still ongoing should point warfare-related news, not just basic Arab-Israeli conflicts. Cambalachero (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first wholistic proposal for the topic (removal/addition/otherwise) rather than the usual partial ones, so good on the nom for that. Though I agree that there hasn't been a major escalation/renewal phase of the war but as any live bulletin of the war would show most news sources/RS don't consider it to be over. While the coverage now focuses on repeated ceasefire violations by Israel, indicating one holds that shouldn't lead to a conflation of military hostilies ceasing. If the war is over our article and sources would reflect it, they don't as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we go with the legal approach, the war was over on October 10, when the ceasefire came into force. If we go with the pragmatic approach (the one being used so far), the war is over once there are no more warfare-related news, and it seems we're already there. As for "most news sources don't consider it to be over", have in mind that I linked the internal tags for the news topic. If we go to Reuters or BBC main page and start from there, there are no Gaza War news in the lead articles, and it would take a lot of scrolling to find them (if there are any at all) Cambalachero (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's seemed quieter, but checking the news, the Guardian reported 2 days ago that Israel had just killed 2 children and 3 others in al-Mawasi, while Al Jazeera reported yesterday that Israel had killed 370 Palestinians so far during the ceasefire. In the last 24 hours I see reports from all over that [s]Israel[/s] someone just killed Yasser Abu Shabab, while 3 others were reported dead after being torture in Israeli prisons (albeit months ago, but Isreal is now releasing the information). Meanwhile, UNICEF has only just reported that 4 children were killed by Israel last week, and 70 more children were killed since the "ceasefire" started. The genocide is still very much in the news. Though it's perhaps no longer a war. Perhaps we can reduce Gaza war timeline/genocide to just Gaza genocide. Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor clarification: I don't think any reliable source are stating that Yasser Al-Habib was killed by Israel. He reportedly died in an Israeli hospital after being injured in Gaza, but the conflicting accounts suggest he was either killed by Palestinian militants or in a local clan-related dispute, not the IDF. Mooonswimmer 21:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean Yasser Abu Shabab. And digging deeper, it may very well be that Hamas assassinated him; sorry, I should be more careful. Still very much in the news though. Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He wasnt killed by Hamas, the Popular Forces group confirmed this. JaxsonR (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Absolutely not. Little has changed very recently to suggest the war is over; people are still dying and Israel still occupies much of Gaza. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems to be over, and no major developments anymore. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The Gaza invasion appears to have subsided for now. As Cambalachero states, there is still violence in Gaza and Palestine but the outright war/invasion seems to be over. This is only a weak support, as there is no clear evidence that the peace process will continue or that this won't break out into fullblown war soon. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support per Natg. There’s been numerous ceasefire violations, but the wide-scale conflict seems to have come to an end (for now - hopefully it lasts). The Kip (contribs) 01:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the war and the genocide is not over. Just check the number of killed in the last days at the daily database of casualties in Gaza. Alexcalamaro (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any actual numbers, just programming languages stuff. In any case, we don't need it to be over as in "nobody dies", but over as in "there are no more breaking news". Living conditions in a post-war setting will be hard for a time, even without anyone firing guns anymore. Cambalachero (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As above. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support while events may be ongoing in real life, near daily media coverage has considerably waned and as such fails that requirement for ongoing. Masem (t) 03:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Frank Gehry

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Frank Gehry (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Architect and designer Frank Gehry (pictured) dies at the age of 96. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Canadian-American architect Frank Gehry dies at the age of 96.
News source(s): New York Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Quite a few citations needed, mostly in the Awards and honors section. Mooonswimmer 19:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose blurb – The article's Legacy section should be substantially expanded beyond a single New York Times honorific to make a convincing case that Gehry was transformative. Not ready for RD either, as there are twelve "citation needed" tags as of this comment. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there needs to be a muchore thorough discussion under the legacy section to consider a urb. Only one source is used for two sentences. I would expect at least two well sourced paragraphs if not more, which likely can be built from obits. We need to make it clear to a reader who doesn't know this person why a blurb was appropriate. Masem (t) 20:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb Influential in his field, multiple award winner. Clearly blurbworthy. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under normal circumstances, he deserves a blurb as a prominent architect on top of the field. Yet, dismissing Niemeyer, who incidentally died on the same day 13 years ago, is a serious problem with long-lasting consequences. Note that Gehry's death hasn't got any obituary retrospecting on his life and career yet (for comparison, Niemeyer got five news articles in three days on the BBC, including a very comprehensive obituary, and his death stayed as top news for hours). So, for now, there aren't even arguments to justify an Anglosphere bias here as his death doesn't garner attention in the English-language reliable sources at the same level as the death of another prominent architect from the non-Anglophonic world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kiril Simeonovski: I don't think the denial of another guy 13 years ago should have any effect on this discussion. The majority of active editors then aren't active now, and the majority of active editors now weren't active then. I don't know much about Niemeyer, but maybe he should have been blurbed. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it shouldn’t. The problem is the level of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, which should be used as a principal argument to justify a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your comment was too early. There are lots of obituaries/sources of Gehry's death now: NYT, BBC, NPR, The Guardian. Natg 19 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kiril, in 2012 we didn't have many people engaged in dissecting such questions; nowadays, in a matter of hours, we already have an entire community debating them. ArionStar (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we should have blurbed him @Kiril Simeonovski - but looking at the discussion at December 2012#Posted Recent death: Oscar Niemeyer, there didn't seem to be much opposition to blurbing it. So if there isn't much opposition to blurbing Niemeyer, then why is it an issue now? Odd it wasn't posted - perhaps confusion because by the standard of the time, the ITNC page actually indicates it WAS posted. Nfitz (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not opposing to blurb Gehry (now it’s even clearer that he merits a blurb as there are some obituaries already published), just saying that we need consistence in recognising someone’s significance from readily available reliable sources (this applies to posting admins as well). Niemeyer was posted to RD, which had been freshly introduced at the time, hence the confusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And then, after it was posted, @Kiril Simeonovski there was still further discussion - with a clear consensus to blurb. But it looks like someone marked the discussion such that it appeared the blurb had been posted. So I think we are being very consistent here. Nfitz (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb theoretically, not ready Iconic figure in architecture. I know like three people in and have little familiarity, but his works and legacy are the lion size of it. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb when ready There are a couple of citation needed tags that need to be resolved first and there's also an orange tag in the awards section. Outside of the quality, Gehry's works in architecture and buildings are very notable. CastleFort1 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netflix–Warner deal

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Warner Bros. Discovery (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Netflix announces that it will acquire Warner Bros. Discovery for $82.7 billion. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Netflix announces that it will acquire Warner Bros. Discovery for $82.7 billion.
News source(s): BBC, Deadline, NYT, Forbes
Updated blurb to clarify that this is just an announcement of an acquisition. Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears a standalone article, Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. by Netflix, has been created and should likely be substituted in the blurb. ----The Robot Parade 00:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This new article is actually quite good, I've added it as the altblurb. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Due to the size of the acquisition, the deal must undergo review by several government competition authorities in major markets […]". Source? ArionStar (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reuters: The deal, given its size alone, is likely to face significant antitrust review by the U.S. Department of Justice...
    Variety: In the U.S., the deal faces an antitrust review by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.
    CNBC: Regulators are likely to take a close look at the deal. The Trump administration already views the deal with “heavy skepticism,” CNBC reported Friday.
    WSJ: The streaming giant’s deal is expected to be investigated by the Justice Department, which has already begun considering how the tie-up would further cement Netflix’s dominance in the media industry. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's in ref to the article table, such as why just this govt orgs? That table needs sourcing Masem (t) 02:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FTC: Forbes. EC: Deadline. CMA: The Wrap, That Park Place. JFTC: Can't find anything but this is the sort of thing they do. Same problem with SAMR, KFTC, ACCC, FCAC, CCI, and CADE. Perhaps there are foreign-language sources but I think they should be removed from the table for now. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another question: Warner Bros. or Warner Bros. Discovery? ArionStar (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is Warner Bros. Discovery. There was a merger creating this organization a few years ago. Natg 19 (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa

[edit]
Article: Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Deadline
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Actor best known for Licence to Kill, 47 Ronin, Mortal Kombat. LookingToWindward (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bung Mokhtar Radin

[edit]
Article: Bung Mokhtar Radin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Malay Mail
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Malaysian politician, died just six days after being re-elected at the Sabah state election. Tofusaurus (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tofusaurus the article needs to be rewritten into prose first for at least the first three sections and also be cited with sources before it reaches the minimum consideration for a RD post. The awards section will also have to be cited. – robertsky (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with the article are now largely fixed. Tofusaurus (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready – Several citations still needed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 4

[edit]

(Stale) Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda peace agreement

[edit]
Stale, peace agreement was already signed in June 2025. (non-admin closure)   Jalapeño   (u t g) 10:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2025 Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda peace agreement (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A peace agreement is formally signed to end the conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda formally sign a peace agreement to end the conflict between two countries amid the conflict in Kivu continues.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda sign a peace agreement.
News source(s): Reuters, Hindustan Times, AP, BBC News
Credits:
 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 02:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This was posted along time ago. JaxsonR (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurb This is not recent news, with the peace agreement being agreed to around 5 and a half months ago. It's not notable enough for a blurb either. TheInevitables (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is a publicity stunt, but there was a separate ratification event held today in Washington DC, and this time attended by the presidents of the countries . Natg 19 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Yasser Abu Shabab

[edit]
Article: Yasser Abu Shabab (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Sky News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Leader of Israel backed anti-Hamas group. Article looks good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support article doesn't seem to have any issues and subject's death has been all over social media Laura240406 (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the article is sufficiently sourced. Qhairun (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well sourced. JaxsonR (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ted Egan

[edit]
Article: Ted Egan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/former-nt-administrator-musician-and-author-ted-egan-dies-aged-93/ar-AA1RF2mc
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Celebrated Australian musician, teacher, crocodile hunter, stockman, linguist, author, footballer, TV star, academic and historian. Also a former Administrator of the Northern Territory. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was looking into this when I updated the page earlier but I haven't had time to find sources, if we source early life and the list of albums this should be good to go. CMD (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 3

[edit]

2025 Hadhramaut offensive

[edit]
Article: 2025 Hadhramaut offensive (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Southern Transitional Council launches an offensive in Hadhramaut, seizing a large part of the province from the Yemeni government. (Post)
News source(s): The New York Times, Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: First major offensive during the Yemeni civil war in years, and may be a turning point for the STC in its pursuit for independence. Hsnkn (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am guessing this is a misunderstanding of ITN terminology by the nominator, as they did suggest a blurb: The Southern Transitional Council launches an offensive in Hadhramaut, seizing most of the province from the Yemeni government. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I withdraw the nom if its still ongoing? Hsnkn (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hsnkn: there are several different types of nominations here at ITN. "Blurb" refers to the 4-5 bulleted sentences in the ITN box which are individual news stories/events (which this does qualify for). "Ongoing" refers to the list of "ongoing events" (currently this is a list of 3 wars and events related to those). Do you want to have a "blurb" posted, or have this offensive added to the "ongoing" section? The guidelines for ongoing section are described here. Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the guidelines but it seems that I still misinterpreted it. Yes I was intending for a blurb. Could this nom be closed and resopsted as a proper one or can I just edit it? Hsnkn (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need a new nomination, I changed it for you. Natg 19 (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Steve Cropper

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

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

Nominator's comments: There are many things that can be said, but in the music world, he was about everywhere and got credit and accolades. For his work with Booker T. and the M.G.'s he was the guitarist on many of its classics, including "Green Onions" and was inducted into the Rock Hall with them (and was also in the Blues Brothers). And also with this also came his backing work on many, many Stax Records recordings as part of the house backing band. Also during this same time he wrote many songs on Stax Records, including "In the Midnight Hour" and "Knock On Wood (Eddie Floyd song)". He also produced as well, most notably, Otis Redding's "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay". TheCorriynial (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Charles Norman Shay

[edit]
Article: Charles Norman Shay (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, AP News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Native American veteran who serve the D-Day and Korean War. ~2025-38341-13 (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ena Collymore-Woodstock

[edit]
Article: Ena Collymore-Woodstock (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Caribbean National Weekly
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Jamaican barrister and magistrate. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nancy Lane Perham

[edit]
Article: Nancy Lane Perham (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Cambridge University Reporter 3 Dec 2025
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Died 23 November but announcement wasn't made until 3 Dec. DrThneed (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Elden Campbell

[edit]
Article: Elden Campbell (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NYT
Credits:

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

 Natg 19 (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed that "claim". Also, cited last remaining cn tag. @Bagumba and Nice4What: Natg 19 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my !vote to support. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Claude (alligator)

[edit]
Article: Claude (alligator) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): CAS
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Albino aligator from the California Academy of Sciences. Article is short, but fully detailed and sourced. --The Robot Parade 17:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He may look small, but the article says he was 3-metres long weighing 140 kg! Perhaps there's a picture with a better perspective! Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the small size of the article, but that works too Normalman101 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 Saint Lucian general election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Saint Lucian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Saint Lucia, the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Philip Pierre (pictured), achieves a landslide majority in the House of Assembly. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Saint Lucia, the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Philip Pierre (pictured), retains its majority in the House of Assembly.
News source(s): The Gaurdian
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: The Labor Party in St Lucia won a landslide majority in the recent parliamentary elections. The article is a bit stubby. — Knightoftheswords 17:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SVG was also opposition.Psephguru (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why Saint Lucia isn't wikilinked? — jonas (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's a precedent not to link country names in blurbs. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ann Bedsole

[edit]
Article: Ann Bedsole (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): WKRG
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First woman to serve in the Alabama House and Alabama Senate. Article looks to be in good shape. TheInevitables (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not only the credits, but just according to Nohomersryan ’s edit Honda Kira (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Robin Smith

[edit]
Article: Robin Smith (cricketer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: England Test cricketer, death announced today. Needs more sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Very undercited at the moment and correctly orange-tagged. Needs an aesthetic clean up too as vast chuncks of text at the moment in the article, awkward to read. Would probably need someone well versed in cricket though, although I gather he was a very prominent player so there should be plenty of sources. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Volodymyr Muntyan

[edit]
Article: Volodymyr Muntyan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News Ukraine (in Ukrainian), UEFA
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Soviet footballer and Ukrainian football manager, one of only two players to win Soviet Top League 7 times, winner of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and Super Cup with Dynamo Kyiv. Skoropadsky (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 1

[edit]

RD: Poorstacy

[edit]
Article: Poorstacy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NBC News
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Rapper wizzito | say hello! 14:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discography probably needs sourcing wizzito | say hello! 14:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Valegro

[edit]
Article: Valegro (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Olympic winning horse, death announced on 1 December. Short article with a couple of citations needed, but with a bit of work, should meet WP:ITNQUALITY. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Anicet Ekane

[edit]
Article: Anicet Ekane (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): English French
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Cameroonian activist and politican who has died while in custody. Article seems fully sourced, albeit a bit short. Should be good to post --The Robot Parade 23:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Nicola Pietrangeli

[edit]
Article: Nicola Pietrangeli (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, Italian Tennis Federation
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First Italian tennis player to win a Major, winning twice the French Open before the Open Era. The only Italian to have been inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. The article is not particularly detailed, but it contains all the important information. Floydpig (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 30

[edit]

(Closed) Closure of Venezuelan airspace

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. There are a few editors supporting bringing the wider military buildup to ongoing so feel free to nominate. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2025 United States naval deployment in the Caribbean (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US President Donald Trump declares Venezuelan airspace to be closed. (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: Looks like a notable escalation to me that has already caused several airlines to cancel flights passing through Venezuela, although as far as I can tell, there's been none of the threatened land operations yet. Banedon (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose unclear yet whether this is just "Trump bluster" or if this has major consequences or not. Natg 19 (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Trump can't close Venezuelan air space in a vague off-hand comment. He can say anything he wants, it doesn't make it true. The only source listed is 2-days old and airspace remains open! NOTTRUMP fail. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Trump has zero authority here. Mind you, due to his actions, the FAA of course has ordered all US carriers to not serve Venezuela, and most other countries are aware of the buildup of military there and are avoiding it, but this is not like an internationally recognized no-fly zone. Masem (t) 03:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ongoing Article quality ok and overall topic is notable. Oppose blurb. Bremps... 04:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose The question of legality is immaterial to whether or not we should post this. At the end of the day Trump has in fact issued the decree and it looks like it is being widely accepted. As of right now, I am not convinced that this is sufficently grave in its own right to post. But I have a very bad feeling that escalation is not far off. Hoping I am wrong but if there is a direct attack or invasion, I would absolutely support that being posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing The target article is a poor fit for the blurb as its lead says nothing about airspace. And when you find a section about airspace, it starts by talking about Puerto Rico, not Venezuela. So, like Bremps says, this seems more of an ongoing topic – assorted events under a more general heading. But I'm not sure the level of operations is sufficient for that yet. The level of escalation seems similar to Chinese operations around Taiwan and is short of being a full war. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ongoing, or should we create a new nomination for that? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How, @Maplestrip, with Venezuelan airspace remaining open - there's at least a half-dozen jets currently tracking over Venezuela, including European carriers like DHL. Nfitz (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: We would be featuring 2025 United States naval deployment in the Caribbean; we do not have an article specifically about the airspace situation. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an entirely different nomination. One that was speedily closed when it was made a couple of months ago, when it was still a recent event - WP:In the news/Candidates/October 2025#(Closed) 2025 US Caribbean naval deployment. There's nothing new or notable about US gunboat diplomacy and bullying. I'd think the war crimes earlier this week by shooting injured sailors in the water would be more notable - though then that's borderline. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: It is an ongoing and evolving news story with a well-written article that sees detailed daily updates. It meets all the ITN goals and requirements, even if it didn't make it two months ago. It is also the article that is being nominated here, eventhough the blurb Banedon is proposing is very specific and not well-representative of what our article is about. But yeah, this is why I asked if a separate nomination would be good, seeing as supports for ongoing draw some confusion. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt this is notable in any way, as long as it's just Trump waving around projections, and making threatening allusions - until a shot actually hits something or another. But that would be a different nomination is a disaster. Days after the fact. A single source from days before the nomination. And the fake news of a declaration. Nfitz (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing a quick Google search, it's easy to confirm that this general topic meets WP:ITNSIGNIF, with BBC, Al Jazeera, and CNN publishing detailed stories in the past few weeks. All the news stories and articles are why we've been able to update the article daily in the first place. You're making a subjective appraisal of the idea that I don't think is appropriate for ITN. That being said, WP:ITNTRUMP suggests more stringent inclusion criteria not described in WP:ITN#Criteria, so the trumpnews argument may indeed apply here. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, another example of WP:TRUMPNEWS, just a post on social media. If the US invades, starts shooting down aircraft, or takes some other substantial military action, then we can reconsider. Modest Genius talk 12:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I never understand nominations like this, not because they're about things that aren't notable, but like the reason this is notable is because it's viewed as a smaller piece towards a potentially bigger story (American military intervention in Venezuela). This alone is a nothing burger, even everything combined isn't really enough to add to "ongoing" (We have 3 of the largest/deadliest military ongoing conflicts in the past decade on there currently). TheFellaVB (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Said Assagaff

[edit]
Article: Said Assagaff (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): 1
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 12th Governor of Maluku from 2014 to 2019 Jon698 (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ludwig Minelli

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

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

Nominator's comments: Swiss lawyer best known as a voluntary euthanasia advocate and founder of Dignitas. Arguably the most significant person in history in bringing the right to die debate to the attention of the world through his work. Article in poor shape so far, however, lots of sources available and the German and Italian Wikipedia sections have a fully sourced outline of his life. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Billy Bonds

[edit]
Article: Billy Bonds (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English footballer and manager. Article needs some citations. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 29

[edit]

Copa Libertadores 2025 finals

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 Copa Libertadores final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Flamengo defeats Palmeiras at the 2025 Copa Libertadores final, becoming the first Brazilian club to win four Libertadores cups. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, the Copa Libertadores concludes with Flamengo defeating Palmeiras in the final.
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: My first nomination, so sorry if it looks incomplete and I will accept any feedback to make this nomination proper. The Copa Libertadores is the most important association football tournament in South America and a major event in both world and South American football. Furthermore, this is the first time a Brazilian team has won the competition four times, marking a historic milestone in the history of the Libertadores and Brazilian football. LordLoko (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Toni Lamond

[edit]
Article: Toni Lamond (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-29/australian-performer-toni-lamond-has-died-aged-93/106082102
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Member of an Australian showbusiness dynasty that includes her half sister Helen Reddy. A career spanning 80 years. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted blurb): Tom Stoppard

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Tom Stoppard (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Playwright and screenwriter Tom Stoppard (pictured) dies at the age of 88. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian, NYT
Credits:

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

 CMD (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb - Stoppard is one of the most notable and acclaimed playwrights of his era, and his death is receiving coverage in multiple major outlets. I would say he is deserving of a blurb. Goosedukeee (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support blurb. Worldwide known playwright, the epitome of British stage. Transformative figure in British theater. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those arguing for a blurb, the article does not have any sourced details of why he was considered a major figure. Simply winning awards is not a sufficient argument to demonstrate this, but likely in the sourcing related to those awards one can assemble more details in the existing Legacy section to explain why he was a major figure and thus given those awards. But just resting the argument for a blurb on the mere existance of the awards is not sufficient here. Masem (t) 20:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Masem. I tend to be a bit more permissive than most on death blurbs, but this guy doesn't even explain why he's more important than other award-winning authors and directors. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear, I am not outright dismissing a blurb here. The Guardian piece above suggests this can be shown, but between the quality issues and lack of clear discussion in this direction, its hard to support a blurb at this point. Masem (t) 20:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a separate article, List of awards and nominations received by Tom Stoppard, which leaves the reader in little doubt that he was a major figure in his field. To make this clearer in the main article, I have added some details to its lead, explaining that he has been "critically compared with Shakespeare"... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Awards by themselves do not give a direct indication of being a major figure. Someone can be a one-hit wonder, get lots of awards for a single work, then vanish or become a poor actor/director/writer/whatever. Someone can be a major figure without even having any awards in their field. That's why its far more important to actually include prose using what reliable sources have said to establish why the person is a major figure. It is very likely in the sourcing for the awards there exists more detailed reasons why the person deserved the award (for being a major figure), and that should be included too. But simplying pointing to an awards list and saying "must be a major figure" is original research without the sources to back that up. Masem (t) 23:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITNRDBLURB does not define a major figure. It just says, posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. It doesn't talk about awards, legacy, page views, vital status, coverage or anything specific. Just a sui generis "merit" determined by consensus. Stoppard actually was in the Order of Merit. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is still required to follow all content policies, this including WP:NOR. Simply pointing to awards and saying that is evidence of a major figure is original research. Present sources that directly say the person is a major figure because of (in whole or in part) of winning all those awards. And while that may not be a factor for consensus, it will far strengthen the reasoning to support a person being a major figure to help get consensus on that side. But we really need to stop all the hand-waving of importance that is not immediately supported by the article with sources that speak directly to that. (Note that I have not said yet whether Stoppard here is a major figure or not, just that when I looked it lacked the evidence to convince me) Masem (t) 13:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This wouldn't be the first time a British literary figure's article seems not to have been up to scratch; Martin Amis never made it onto RD if I recall correctly. Will it be like this for Alan Bennett, too? There might be a case for directing attention towards major elderly figures who perhaps don't have such a large fanbase here. Ham II (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "will it be like this for Alain Bennett, too?" - yes! and that's as it should be This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly notable writers not clearing the bar for RD is as it should be? I don't think so. There should be some sort of assessment/improvement drive for BLPs which could credibly appear at WP:ITN/C in the near future. Ham II (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no OR because the blurb just says that the subject has died; it doesn't make any claim about them being a major figure. What we're doing here is a minor matter of editorial presentation – putting the information in a bulleted list or spelling it out in prose (plus a picture). The major figure aspect is ITN's internal way of describing the decision process. And that process doesn't say anything about either of the words "legacy" or "awards" so it's not clear why Masem thinks there's a big difference between them. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Here's my issue: There's tons of famous people out there who won a lot of awards, and we won't blurb all, or even most, of those people. I am not familiar with Stoppard's work. Outside of the awards, which are too common to be the sole reason for blurbing, nothing in the article explains why he was a big deal, and as such, I cannot support. If the article explained why he was important past saying he won a bunch of things, I'd have more reason to consider supporting. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Order of Merit is not common as it's "quite possibly, the most prestigious honour one can receive on planet Earth." Note that Margaret Thatcher and Nelson Mandela were both members. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first paragraph of the article calls Stoppard "one of the most internationally performed dramatists of his generation; and critically compared with William Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw." Did you miss that? Einsof (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One sentence in the lede and introducing information not in the body of the article is a quality problem. The lede should be summarizing the article, not introducing elements not present in the body. (The sentence itself is otherwise fine in the lede, but you're asking for one sentence to carry a ton of weight to justify being a major figure. Masem (t) 02:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'm asking for the claim "nothing in the article explains why he was a big deal" to be reconciled with a very obvious sentence in the first paragraph of the article that anyone participating in this discussion should have read before commenting at all. And I went ahead and reproduced the lede statement in the article body, so you don't have that excuse anymore. Einsof (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's still not really sufficient from a quality standpoint, particularly given only a single source used (even if it is the NYTimes). There should be a significant expansion of how his works were insightful and why the comparisons to Shakespeare and Shaw are apt, summarizing multiple leading sources for discussing the works of the theater. I figure with such comparions, that's seomthing that should be readily covered by at least two paragraphs worth of critical praise on his works from multiple sources, and not just the opinion of one author. Then the single sentence in the lede now is an appropriate summary of what the body says.
    I will stress that I don't doubt his status as a major figure, but the article's shape is nowhere close to the quality we should expect for someone who is considered a major figure, so the more that this can be expanded upon within the article, the better this is appropriate to feature as a blurb on the main page. Masem (t) 02:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps there is some confusion. The part of the main page that is concerned with perfectionist-level rewrites like you are suggesting is WP:FA, on the left-hand side. WP:ITN (the right-hand side) is to showcase rapid updates based on news events, so long as the articles behind them meet minimum quality standards. Articles for WP:FA are necessarily staged well in advance, but WP:ITN, being a dynamic resource, cannot operate that way. Trying to operate that way just leads to stale blurbs being promoted long after anyone could possibly be looking for them in the news. Einsof (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking for FA perfection, I'm asking for basic comprehensiveness, which if we are going to highlight a person at a blurb just due to their death by old age/natural causes, should go into why the person was considered a great figure beyond the whole of one sentence. It doesn't have to be FA quality writing, but it should be more significant than a sentence and single source. And reading the obits, that information is out there, just that no one is taking the steps to add it to the article. Masem (t) 12:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb in principle - One of the greatest screenwriters and playwrights of his era. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb. Others may disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, we don't do OLDMANDIES blurbs any more. We rejected aecesal last week and we should continue rejecting them here. This is what RD is for, or indeed sticky RD if that were a thing. Stoppard may have been a successful playwright etc but he is not Nelson Mandela. That's all we need to consider.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A blurb for the death of 97-year-old James Watson was posted just 3 weeks ago and most editors supported this. The ongoing RfC doesn't seem likely to change this status quo. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:21, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That blurb should not have been posted. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting the Dude: well, that’s just your opinion, man. The RFC to get rid of death blurbs seems to be going down in defeat, and your insistence on dismissing every death blurb as OLDMANDIES is not supported by any of our current policies (nor does it seem to be building to our soon to be community consensus that it should be our future one). GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 13:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy exists - it simply isn't "as far as you are concerned". Nfitz (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no policy on the level of individual required for blurbing, like the rest of ITN it's up to the editors who turn up to determine whether they think significance levels have been met. The standard applied to this project for blurbing has by convention always been "Thatcher or Mandela stature individuals", as you well know, and this Tom Stoppard fella is nowhere near that. I hadn't even heard of him before seeing this threat. In the past we have often blurbed people like this because the ball has been dropped a little by editors and admins alike, but no more. The trend of discussions at WT:DYK has been that only very exceptional cases are blurbed, and I am fully on board with that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: That's not where it's trending. The RFC seems to have more Opposers than Supporters, and even some of the supporters are supporting for the purpose of allowing more death blurbs. The anti-blurb side is a vocal minority and things are certainly not trending towards a reduction. Personally, I think our current standards are about right, but I understand why some may disagree. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC currently in play isn't about the level of person we blurb, it's simply about whether to remove blurb guidance altogether and effectively leave it as a free-for-all. I don't support that proposal myself as it would lead to even more uncertainty than we currently have, but there's no reason not to retain the historic standard of only blurbing Thatcher/Mandela level individuals. Going forward I and, I think, several others here intend to be much stronger in enforcing that standard, which should hopefully result in a lot fewer run-of-the-mill individuals such as Stoppard being blurbed when the whole point of RD is to cover such deaths.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stoppard is decidedly not a "run of the mill individual", as what kind of person who is run of the mill has a Wikipedia article detailing all of the awards that they were nominated for? Other RD noms that are currently nominated maybe, but evidently not Stoppard.
    In contrast, a couple days ago, I nominated Gentildonna for an RD, because I knew there would be no way that a mere horse would get a Death blurb, but she has a similar roll of accomplishments as other individuals that would have possibly qualified for a blurb were she human (Triple Tiara (the Japanese Triple Crown for mares) winner 2012; Japanese Horse of the Year 2012 and 2014; Japan Racing Association Hall of Fame inductee; etc). I don't know how one can classify someone like Stoppard as mere run of the mill, and I'm not even a theater buff. Looking at their roll of accomplishments (in the separate article we have!) would be enough to disprove that. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: First off, it won't really matter how strictly you and Orbital try to enforce that if the rest of the community doesn't agree, but also: in your mind, what is the Thatcher-Mandela standard? What is your standard for blurbworthiness, and could any entertainer possible meet it? This isn't targeted at Stoppard BTW, just in general. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are probably a handful of entertainers who would meet the Thatcher/Mandela standard, maybe Paul McCartney or someone like that, but it would have to be someone who's generally a household name worldwide. Old-age death blurbs are rare exceptions where the death itself is a major event - top headline in all the papers, talked about for several days afterwards etc, that's the gold standard there which turns the death from an RD-level to a blurb-level. And you know that would be the case for Mandela/Thatcher but not for Stoppard. I don't pretend to have any authority over what is and isn't posted, but I for one won't be supporting run-of-the-mill nominations like this going forward (and make no mistake, Stoppard is run-of-the-mill; I don't deny he achieved many great things in his career, he was certainly top of his field and all that, but so are countless other people, and our blurb selection at recent years has been awful in that regard).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a completely valid way to assess deathblurb proposals. Thank you for clarifying. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not valid because Amakuru's comments are contradictory. If someone is "certainly top of his field" then they are are obviously not "run-of-the-mill" as these have opposite meanings. It's still not clear how we're supposed to distinguish a Thatcher/Mandela from Stoppard. All three were members of the exclusive Order of Merit and so seem to have a similar level of recognition and standing. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrew Davidson: Saying that this playwright who isn't even Level 5 is at the same level of recognition and standing as Thatcher and Mandela is patently absurd. I don't believe that anyone who receives the Order of Merit automatically deserves a blurb (with some of the people we've voted down for death blurbs, there's no chance Robin Eames will be blurbed). Outside of that award and a few common stage awards, I see no other reason to blurb this guy. Also, I think Amakuru's comment was intended to mean that a lot of top-of-their-field bios die each month, and we can't blurb them all. We didn't blurb Dharmendra or Jimmy Cliff, and I don't see why Stoppard is more important than them. Amakuru's standard for determining blurbworthiness is level of sustained coverage over several days, which is a completely valid way of determining it, even if it isn't the exact method I use. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb. As I see it, the various discussions on ITN/Talk have yielded no consensus to change the status quo. So blurbs for deceased people are still a thing, and as such, Tom Stoppard seems deserving of one. Article quality is fine for me. Khuft (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong oppose blurb for the same reasons as precedent below on dharmendra (both in the same field).Psephguru (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The old man dies blurbs need to stop as they arent productive. RD was created to handle deaths and we need to let it do its job. If someone is either assassinated or dies in suspicious circumstances, then that's a different case. Noah, BSBATalk 01:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seminal playwright and scriptwriter for over a half-century. And front page news. The objections to this seem to based on a theory that RDs shouldn't be blurbed - which is outside of policy. Nfitz (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In line with my support for abolishing RD blurbs entirely. Gotitbro (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue that such a position for opposing a blurb is breaking our policy, and also violates WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. There's a place for such discussions - and the discussion there clearly failed. I'd ask anyone closing this discussion ignore positions based on this pretend policy. Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's less them referring to the RfC as if it were policy and more "I think this, and there happens to be an RfC on it right now". Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Failed? Never saw it closed, have yet to comment there myself (still waiting for any substantial rebuttal).
    To call the comment a "disruptive point", "pretend" is stretching it. There is an ongoing RfC, well within discretion to refer to substantial proposals. To say that we needn't consider the position is not a serious arguement. Gotitbro (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clear from the RfC that there is no consensus to change this. To pretend otherwise is not a serious argument. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Has no bearance on the fact that it is ongoing and the comment is very well in line with that. To make an assertion of bad faith disruption is not what you should be doing. Either ask for a close or take the grievance to whatever forum you deem apt. Gotitbro (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, @Gotitbro, the posting statement supported that abolishing RD blurbs isn't a valid argument, given the failing RFC. Nfitz (talk) 04:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, Kite makes an observation that the RfC may not lead to an agreement. That has no bearing on the validity of the opposes.
    For an RfC that's barely run a month, more noise is being made about its crystal outcome than the substance of the RfC itself which as other editors note below is simply less RD blurbs. Again bat for a closure of it at the apt forum but it doesn't affect its status as of now. Gotitbro (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb I think this is a clear-cut case as he was lauded as the greatest dramatist of his generation, and the article’s ‘Legacy’ section demonstrates significance.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb RD Blurbs should cover people of great significance. This individual is somewhat significant but does not meet the threshold for a blurb. TheInevitables (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet you voted to blurb the far less significant Dharmendra. Dr Fell (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr Fell: Dharmendra's article explained why he was impactful. This article does not, past a list of awards. I imagine you wouldn't support blurbing every actor who wins a lot of awards, and without further article content I can't see why Stoppard would be any different from them. I also strongly disagree that we should automatically post anyone who receives the Order of Merit, for the same reason we don't automatically blurb people who receive lifetime awards, or the Nobel Peace Prize, or the Presidential Medal of Freedom. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it says in the first paragraph of the article, Stoppard is "one of the most internationally performed dramatists of his generation;[3] and critically compared with William Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw." Those are not awards. Einsof (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind explaining why he is “far less significant”? I’d argue Dharmendra’s influence to pop culture reached more people as Bollywood is a massive industry and he played a great role in it. TheInevitables (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb At the end of the day, theatre (as opposed to cinema) isn't nearly as significant as it was 100 years ago, and is too narrow of a field for a death blurb to be warranted. 1779Days (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The guy was a Hollywood scriptwriter for decades, @1779Days. He won an Oscar for Shakespeare in Love and was also nominated for Brazil. Why do you note that theatre isn't as significant (as cinema)? Nfitz (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb, as the article satisfies the four prongs of WP:ITNPURPOSE and is of high quality. Don't care about previous ITN discussions. Einsof (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb on notability per above, I don't know much about theatre but he seems to be regarded as a transformative playwright and his article reflects that to a degree. However, oppose RD on quality - after a pass through, the article has numerous uncited statements/paragraphs, and nearly the entire "Published works" section is unreferenced. The Kip (contribs) 05:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb once sourcing issues fixed. Leading figure in theatre that is reflected in the amount of worldwide coverage. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb One of the major English-language authors in the last six decades or so, certainly in the field of theatre. Some comments here about him "not meeting standards" are quite shocking, honestly.Trepang2 (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Although he has influenced in his field significantly, I don't believe that we should be blurbing all 50+ people who were nominated in the Academy award multiple times. Fellow Order of Merit member Sir Micheal Atiyah, whose article is also a vital level-5 article (Stoppard is not), was not blurbed in Jan 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didgogns (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was lots of support for a blurb for Michael Atiyah too. But again we heard the same non-policy complaints that he wasn't Thatcher/Mandela/Bowie. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus position has been moving in favor of a more restricted RDB for a long time. I'm obviously fairly hardcore in my conception of OLDMANDIES, but it's not exactly an uncommon position This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You wish. With 23 RD blurbs, this is a comparatively high year so far. By my count, the numbers are:
    • 2021 = 19
    • 2022 = 14
    • 2023 = 13
    • 2024 = 17
    • 2025 = 23 to date
    Andrew🐉(talk) 13:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. We're dropping the ball. Expect far fewer blurbs going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With how the RFC on this seems to be shaking out? I don’t think you should count your chickens before they hatch. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 20:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Two a month is too many? How many banana republic elections and coups do we have a month? Nfitz (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps try and take those very concerns to ITNR, what editors personally consider to be sham elections or "banana republics" (the latter also clearly a derogatory usage) does not affect the posting of these. That these were unfair or unfree can be amended in the blurb but does not make the presumed ITN siginificance any less relevant. Gotitbro (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Didgogns - if his achievements were simply a couple of Oscar nominations then that would be a valid point. But he was world-famous decades before his first (1980s) Oscar nomination. The guy won FIVE Tony awards for Best Play (pretty much the grand prize, other than Best Musical) between 1966 and 2023 - a 67-year period! Have you read List of awards and nominations received by Sir Tom Stoppard. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Back in 2019, we didn't even try blurbing Hal Prince. He won more Tony awards than him including lifetime achievement one (Which Stoppard didn't receive when he was alive), and his article is vital-5 (Again, Stoppard is not). Didgogns (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's comparable. For Best play there is usually one writer and many directors/producers. For Best Musical there's typically one person for the book, one or two for the music/lyrics, and even more producers. Hal Prince was a director and producer. No writer has ever won more Tony's for Best Play than Sir Tom Stoppard. I really don't think Prince was a household name like Stoppard. And unlike Stoppard not even a single Emmy or Oscar nomination, let alone win. No BAFTAs. No Golden Globes. No Laurence Olivier Awards. No civic honours. No knighthoods. No honorary degrees. And hardly a household name. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support blurb: Sir Tom was more than just a monumental influence on theatre. Sure, he won five Tonys over a five decade career. But more than that, he did so by making abstruse science, mathematics and intellectual tomfoolery a defining feature of his work, which has caught on (successfully) with many others, like Copenhagen and Proof. Sir Tom was heavily involved with supporting freedom of speech behind the Iron Curtain. He was a close personal friend of Vaclav Havel, comforting him when jailed. At the time of the Velvet Revolution, Sir Tom was in the US involved with a production of one his own plays, but he and Havel spoke nightly. He was a good friend of Mick Jagger, and Jagger convinced Stoppard to adapt the Harris Enigma novel for Jagged Film's first film production Enigma. And Sir Tom has probably been the biggest secret influencer to pop culture ever: he was Spielberg's go-to script doctor and frequent consultant, almost always uncredited. (For example, the comedy bits between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery in Indy 3 are almost entirely his doing.) And for those without a clue: Order of Merit is not simply an award or honor, it is strictly limited to 24 living Commonwealth citizens at a time. (All this and more can be found in Dame Hermione Lee's biography of Sir Tom.) ~2025-37549-82 (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said. Perfect encapsulation of why a blurb is warranted. Dr Fell (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb - old person dies, so what? EF5 15:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the list of works cited enough for a RD? We can at least do that much. Omnifalcon (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, since several of the works are not blue linked and uncited. That needs improvement too. Masem (t) 15:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bibliography has been added to the top of the list of works, no objections to posting an RD now Omnifalcon (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Blurb when updated. I don't normally get into blurb vs RD arguments for the deceased, but the sheer amount of accolades and front page coverage his death has generated has made this, at least for me, a no brainer despite otherwise being utterly uneducated in the matter of theater and screenwriters in general. Understand that his article might not be fleshed out about what makes Stoppard so notable, which is an issue. But when that's fixed, a blurb should be in the offing. Acting like the RFC on the ITN Talk Page is a fait accompli instead of something that seems about to go down in defeat is not how things are done. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb —User:Rosencrantz, or Guildenstern? 16:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why the heck do published standalone works ever need to be cited? The work is its own citation! As it is, Hermione Lee Tom Stoppard: A Life, the 872-page authorized biography from 2021 lists a "Chronology of Works by Tom Stoppard" pp 763–4, including first stage performances, first radio/TV broadcasts, first film releases of his screenplays, and publications of his stories and his one novel. The only thing really missing is all his movie reviews from the 1960s, which some of us are waiting to be collected, but itemizing them is certainly not essential. ~2025-37549-82 (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP are supposed to be fully self sourced as to be used for offline purposes. While I think there is some leniance for those works that are blue linked where it is clear they are the author, works without blue links mean that even the existence of the work needs sourcing, which will likely include authorship. Masem (t) 18:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on James Joyce, which has been promoted to featured status, does not carry citations for its bibliography. Asking for a stricter citation standard than the standard applied to FAs just to get an article blurbed on the main page for a few days is completely ridiculous. Einsof (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to make a point, but I would believe the decision there would then be to source the bibliography on the James Joyce page and enforce the sourcing of those sections in FAs going forward, rather than leave substantial portions of a biography unsourced. ----The Robot Parade 20:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was promoted in 2004, and while reviewed in 2021, shouldn't be taken to assume today's standards. Again, one overarching source for the bibliography has been found, that is sufficient to cover it so it's a tiny easy fix. Masem (t) 20:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, for published books, an ISBN number is considered sufficient. For other works where no ISBN number is assigned, sourcing is needed. I don't know which applies here. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a substantial bibliography published by the British Library, Tom Stoppard: A Bibliographical History, which runs to over 300 pages plus a CD-ROM. The reader can consult such general reference works if they want to confirm such details. And there are other standard bibliographic links provided such as {{authority control}}. We therefore don't need to cite his list of standard works and this is the common practice of FA articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:52, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If that source exists, then it can be tagged in at the top of the list of works as a broad ref to cover them all. Relying on authority control is not a good solution if all it takes is on addition cite template to resolve cleanly. Masem (t) 20:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is a basic Wikipedia pillar and simply can't be discarded for the sake of convenience. Gotitbro (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V doesn't say that inline citations are required for everything. What it actually says is that all facts must be attributable but that inline citations are only required for quotations and facts which are contentious or likely to be challenged. It's usually trivial to establish whether an author wrote something or not and so the list of works does not seem contentious, especially as many of them appear elsewhere in the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to pass an FA that has no contentious info and thus no citations. The only thing we absolutely don't require citations are crystal clear things like the sky being blue and 2+2=4
    Works that are not mentioned anywhere in the prose and otherwise are uncited are contentious info that needs something me type of verification. I appreciate trying to minimize the work but using blue links or isbn numbers to point to other places, but in absence of these, some source is required. Masem (t) 00:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the current FA – SMS Pommern. The lead for this has three substantial paragraphs and an infobox which are crammed full of facts but there isn't a single inline citation for any of these. The theory is that these facts will be backed up elsewhere in the article but the reader would have to hunt because there's no specific link to citations or sources. No-one minds because the material is not contentious.
    The first paragraph of the body of that FA has a few inline citations but these seem to be used lightly and selectively rather than indiscriminately. This is consistent with the guidance of WP:V to just use inline citations where they seem needed rather than everywhere. So, Masem is pushing for a level of citing which goes beyond FA practice. These demands are excessive and disruptive when they obstruct posting of an article like this which has a reasonably respectable level of quality.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LEDECITE - we do not require citations in the lede unless we are directly quoting something, as long as that information is sourced appropriately in the body. That's not saying that material may or may not be contentious, just that its far cleaner for the reader to read the quick summary if that's all they're trying to get out of an article. A reader that needs to start actual research and understanding is more likely to read through the rest of the article and thus needs the citations there.
    When it comes to a list of works, unless we have a significant figure, we rarely have one comprehensive, reliable source that lists all the works (like with actors, IMDB is not reliable), so we have to piece meal sourcing each entry from multiple sources. But as you have shown, there is a single reliable source for Stoppard that can be used to cover all the works (I am taking the claim it does in good faith, I haven't checked), so you can just slap that source ahead of the lists and add some statement like "Complete works per (source)" and you're all done. Masem (t) 13:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the lede or ib say something that is not in the body that is a shortcoming of the FA process not an impeachment of basic Wikipedia policies. Gotitbro (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See errors in 90% of Wikipedia's best articles. I checked SMS Pommern and found two discrepancies with a figure in the infobox not matching the corresponding figure in the body. So, even at FA level you will not get absolute perfection and so it's our policy that perfection is not required. We should therefore be pragmatic and focus more on getting such respectable topics posted. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RD, Oppose Blurb – I appreciate all the work that has gone into this article in the past two days, but it being a single-line death update, it's not appropriate for a full feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To address this issue I have expanded the section about his death, giving details of his family's presence and quoting King Charles' tribute as a high-profile example.
    Note that there are no {{cn}} or other cleanup tags and so I'm not seeing why we can't post this now. There is some rotation of the article's lead image occurring, as often happens. They are all reasonable choices but I've reset it to the one getting most support on the talk page, which shows him in his prime.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 12:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Support blurb – Thanks for letting me know about the update! This now looks like an appropriate feature to me, a good example of our ability to improve an article in the news :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nowhere close to justifying a major figure.
    I've seen several obit articles, there is a ton of commentary about his importance. It is not something that has to be scrounged for. But these need to be in the article to demonstrate directly how he was a major figure, as I first said days ago. That would also support a significant update to the article. Masem (t) 13:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir Tom was also extremely significant in changing the West's perception of the Soviet crackdown on Czechoslovakia, more or less writing the script for the Velvet Revolution a decade before it happened with his television play Professional Foul. The play was an unexpected rallying cry that woke people up. See [3] for a summary. ~2025-37549-82 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So this should clearly be documented in the article as part of his legacy. The absence of this type of information is a quality problem for a blurb Masem (t) 19:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree with Masem here. None of these claims about Stoppard's significance are relevant if they're not even mentioned in the article, and these are good examples of the kinds of updates we want to see during the ITN process. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb per 1779Days, though this might be ready for RD by now? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support blurb Based on obits and aspects of the article, it is clear that Stoppard was at the top of his field, an influential writer (on stage and screen). However, his legacy section could do a better job at explaining/summarizing this. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose section looks ready for RD, but unsure if the "Published works" section needs more references/citations. Natg 19 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per above. Quality issues sufficiently addressed, and clear transformative impact merits a blurb. Davey2116 (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose blurb Pursuant to the discussions on the talk page, there is clear consensus that the community wants fewer RD blurbs and a higher standard for posting. Absent a change to the guideline, I think the best way to implement this is to refrain from posting any nomination where you have to count the votes. I would also caution about over-interpretation of the RFC vote: most opposes there don't like the specific change but do support a higher standard for posting. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't want to post this, but that isn't the consensus on the talk page, and I'd prefer if people stopped trying to interpret that way. The change is getting voted down, and even some of the supporters are supporting for the purpose of allowing more death blurbs, so interpreting that RFC as a consensus to post less is seeing what you want to see. Frankly, I don't think it is possible to interpret that RFC as a consensus for anything. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, Sir Tom is a higher standard. ~2025-37549-82 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reiterating that that is certainly not the clear consensus at the RfC. My perspective, which is that the status quo already reflects the balance between those who want more death blurbs and those who want fewer, is well-represented, and as QuicoleJR said, that discussion has not found a consensus for anything, so we certainly shouldn't be citing it here as if it has. I really don't understand how people are trying to claim that the consensus position has been moving in favor of a more restricted RDB for a long time or there is clear consensus that the community wants fewer RD blurbs, when the empirical consensus at ITN/C has routinely resulted in posting blurbs that you think should not have been posted. Honestly the whole RfC exercise strikes me as a backroom attempt to subvert the ITN/C consensus. And obviously, Absent a change to the guideline, I think the best way to implement this ... is to not implement it, because there is not the requisite support to implement it. If there is consensus for a policy change, then an RfC spelling out exactly what the change is would be easily successful. Davey2116 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed; thank you for providing an example of that "over-interpretation of the RFC vote" I was referring to. The failure of the RfC means that the change to the guideline (not policy) is not made, and nothing more. That guideline says "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." As the guideline is still in place, interpretation of the major figures qualifier remains 100% completely subjective. I am choosing to engage with that sui generis discussion by supporting enforcement of the "rare" qualifier by opposing all but the most substantial nominations. As an aside, I specifically acknowledge that the RFC was not adopted ("Absent a change to the guideline"), so I'm struggling to understand why you would think I was referring to consensus for it. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was simply challenging the assertion that pursuant to the discussions on the talk page, there is clear consensus that the community wants fewer RD blurbs and a higher standard for posting because that is not what the discussions actually say. I think the above-quoted assertion is you yourself over-interpreting the RFC and related discussions, trying to portray them as consensus for fewer death blurbs when they never reached anything of the sort. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb as a major figure. I've seen articles about his life over the last several days, which meets the "Thatcher/Mandela/Michael Jackson standard" proposed in the 2016 RfC. Arguments based on an unfinished RfC are jumping the gun. There's a whole article of awards he's won, including a record number of Tony awards for a playwright. Moreover, I think blurbs are an important venue for the arts as news. Most ITN articles are either ITN/R or disasters; and ITN/R heavily favours changes of government and sporting events - about 40-50 changes of government per year, about 50 sporting events, 16 arts stories, 8 science/maths, and 3 "others". A death list isn't a great way to balance things out, but it's better than nothing. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support blurb per CohenTheBohemian, Davey2116, Trepang2 and Einsof, among others. An obvious choice for a blurb, as I see it. Jusdafax (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posted blurb There appears to be general agreement that the article is up to scratch now, and there is certainly a majority of support for posting it. A quick headcount says 20v13, but of coruse we don't "do" simple headcounts, so considering that I note that there are a number of Oppose !votes referencing "we don't do OLDMANDIES" per the current extremely messy RfC on the talk page - which at present does not appear to be heading for agreement. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting Support: Based on his legacy, he's notable worldwide. ROY is WAR Talk! 09:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pull I've legit never heard of him until now, and his field is kinda niche at best. Given that the coverage of his death is only in the western world, I doubt this is even qualify as a worthy blurb. NotKringe (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not knowing who someone is, is not valid rationale to pull.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 11:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of his death is not only in the western world. For example, the Times of India ran at least three articles: [4], [5], [6]. And it's easy to find coverage in other such sources as the South China Morning Post. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you never heard of him is not a valid reason to object. I still will say the article could be doing a lot more to explain why he was important though, so that even if you never heard of him, the article should have a clearly sourced discussion that spells this out better to people not familiar with the field. Masem (t) 11:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pulling. Never heard of him is not a valid reason for opposing blurb, it is not what counts.
His coverage is not obly in Western world, there are plenty publications in Russian [7], here is Indian publications [8] [9], here is Al Jazeera reporting. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Posting Oppose The article quality is fine, and he had a large impact in his field. But I wouldn't put him at the same level as other RD blurbs, and I don't see any news mention of his passing. Not every notable person dying should result in a blurb, if it is not "it the news" then it shouldn't in ITN. Normalman101 (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one thing to say that Stoppard doesn't rise to the level of significance for a blurb or the news coverage isn't enough, but I don't see any news mention of his passing is just plain incorrect and easily rebuttable just from looking at this nomination discussion or a cursory search. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's the almighty algorithm, but I looked up "news Tom" and didn't get a single mention of his name in the top 10 results. I surmise that someone who didn't know about hs passing wouldn't have likely found out from those results. Normalman101 (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the way you should look for it. Google it with "Stoppard", or "Stoppard died".
    There is plenty coverage CNN Reuters France 24 Associated PressSpiegelMarca, no way someone who watches regularly news websites would not notice this news. BilboBeggins (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't looking for more info, I was trying to see how much of his name was required to get a result. I can type any last name and get information on people, oftentimes even eulogies. Also these sites cover tonnes of topics and "regularly watching news" doesn't include looking through every story out there. I oppose the blurb, and I don't find the occurance worthy. It doesn't really matter at this point as it's already posted. Normalman101 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Note: "I didn't see any mention of his passing", is just true, because I didn't see any mention of it. Again that's not a valid reason for stopping posting, but it's valid enough for my vote. I really don't care to pull the blurb, that's why I didn't vote "Pull", I just wanted the preference to stand. To each their own. Normalman101 (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Posting Oppose After all the "old men die" argument usually put forward to deny a blurb for others, we now have a case of an "unknown old man died" who got a blurb. Because despite his illustrious career, he wasn't known outside his country let alone outside his field of work. But well, as usual, if you are from the English speaking Western world, you get preferential treatment. This raises the same question yet again, is English language Wikipedia meant to be a reflection of the White Anglophone world or should it be treated as an universal encyclopaedia given the use of English as the primary lingua franca of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that he was "unknown" completely deflates your attempted argument. It is objectively false. And the invocation of a racialist angle is entirely inappropriate. Dr Fell (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As the posting admin I'm actually going to reply to this, because it's pissed me off. He definitely was known (see the NYT obit and the others mentioned above) ... and yeah, don't accuse me of racism my friend - the admission that you've never heard of him is more telling, quite frankly. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Telling of what ? There's a world outside yours. Have you read the book that won this year's Goncourt Prize ? If you haven't, you must also be an ignoramus like me. Varoon2542 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no I haven't. But then equally I'm not posting nonsense about the Prix Goncourt being completely unknown, am I? Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm troubled by the false claims and gaslighting about this being only a white Anglophone world, @Varoon2542 and @NotKringe. Are Russia, India, and Qatar now part of the white Anglophone world? Should we be topic-banning those who make false claims, and then don't withdraw them when they are made aware of their error? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Should we be topic-banning those who make false claims, and then don't withdraw them when they are made aware of their error?"
    Excellent way to silence any form of debate. Don't agree with someone, let's make him pay for it. Varoon2542 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Debate ahead, @Varoon2542. The issue is that you claimed he wasn't known outside his country and went on about the white English-speaking world. Despite the world-wide coverage of his death, in not only other countries, but non-English speaking and non-white countries. Not to mention winning some of the most prestigious awards in foreign countries. And still - you don't withdraw your false claims. Why are you gaslighting us? To what end? An honest mistake I can understand. But we are now beyond that, with @NotKringe's comments being even more egregious than yours!. How either you think that a Jew whose name was Tomáš Sträussler, from Eastern Europe is a white Anglophone, I don't know. Such objections are vile and disgusting! You think the issue here is "not agreeing with someone"? Really? That's what you think is going on here? Nfitz (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Admittedly I was "ill-educated" to claim that his death wasn't covered outside of Anglosphere, but I didn't even claim that he was blurbed because of his ethnicity or the field of work (since that was besides the point). Still, I maintain my oppose based on the fact that he's not quite the well-known figure outside of his field. NotKringe (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah sorry, @NotKringe, I got the most egregious backwards! It was someone else who was talking about white anglophones, when discussing a non-white (at least back when he was born) non-anglophone. Nfitz (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you aren't accusing me of antisemitism ? Not only I'm not an an antisemite, I fully support Israel. Now, on the issue itself. He made his career in the UK and the broader Anglophone world. By pointing that out I had Alain Delon in mind who despite being known worldwide didn't have a blurb and nearly didn't get an RD because he is French. Stoppard's work in theatre is known only in the UK and his "worldwide fame" is based on one film, Shakespeare's in love. I'm merely pointing out the double standards where they are much lower for an Anglophone. Something I said I could understand if we treat English language Wikipedia as one destined first for Anglo-Saxons with roots from the British isles. Varoon2542 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that in reality there was almost overwhelming support for Delon getting a blurb on notability, but the reason it wasn't posted wasn't "because he is French" (I mean, really?) but the actual fact that the article was so badly undersourced that it wasn't of sufficient quality to be posted (it's still got citation needs tags in to this day). Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What has supporting Israel got to do with antisemitism? I think I know more Jews who oppose Israel's genocide in Palestine, than who support it! Though I don't think most Jews I know have been anywhere near that country - certainly not the ones in the USA. My point is that you referred to a Czech person, of a minority ethnic group that's not been considered white (or white enough at least), as a white Anglophone. What your motive is for still not climbing off this mountain is, I don't know. Again you are going on about Anglo-Saxons when discussing the nomination of an Eastern European Jew. Why? Nfitz (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what is going on with this discussion, but Stoppard lived and worked primarily in the UK. That makes him English (Anglophone?) to me, regardless of his original nation of origin or ethnicity. But this discussion and name calling has gone on well enough. Stoppard is remaining posted and arguing over semantics is unhelpful. Natg 19 (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Before you commented I already made post with links to AL Jazeera, Indian articles, Russian article. There are many more. BilboBeggins (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - I used those examples because I'd read your post! Thank you! Nfitz (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull – There was no clear consensus to post this, even using the "headcount" shows 40% opposed the blurb—that isn't nothing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If only 40% oppose this blurb – and it's even lower removing the 'deaths shouldn't be blurbed' votes – there's a solid consensus for the blurb. Dr Fell (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue there was a consensus, and also that the votes saying "we won't blurb anymore" referring to ongoing disussion at RFC for which there is no result, and consensus is against proposition do not have a proper argumentation. BilboBeggins (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that consensus is established on several counts including strength of discussion. As the last blurb supporter before posting, I obviously commend the posting admin. I’m now going to ask an uninvolved admin to look at this matter. It seems to me we are reaching a “more heat than light” point here, and that the discussion should be closed. Jusdafax (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support The quality of argumentation for pulling/not posting here makes my blood boil. "I don't know him"—well, educate yourself. "Old man dies, so what"—young man wins another bicycle race, so what? "You're being Anglocentric"—Well, it so happened that one of the most renowned playwrights in the world wrote in English (wasn't even a born Englishman). "He's just an Oscar winner"—no, he's much more than that. TL&DR: keep the blurb, obviously.Trepang2 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Well, it so happened that one of the most renowned playwrights in the world wrote in English"
    An illustrous unknown for the rest of the world. I live in France and noone knows him by name
    I guess the whole french population should "get educated"? Varoon2542 (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the half the world's presidents by name nor does anyone I know. Does that mean that any one of them dying wouldn't be notable?   Jalapeño   (u t g) 11:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stoppard is not completely unknown in France. For example, see La mort de Tom Stoppard... and French warm to dramatics of Tom Stoppard. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2025 World Rally Championship

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2025 World Rally Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In motorsport, Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Vincent Landais win the World Rally Championship. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In motorsport, Sébastien Ogier (pictured) wins his ninth World Rally Championship title, joining Sébastien Loeb as the driver with the most world titles.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In motorsport, Sébastien Ogier (pictured) wins his ninth World Rally Championship title, tying with Sébastien Loeb for most world titles.
News source(s): Autosport, BBC, DirtFish, Reuters
Credits:

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.

Nominator's comments: Not sure if this title-equalling record is ITN-worthy, or more of a DYK item, so an ALT was added for discussion. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Juan Orlando Hernández pardon

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Juan Orlando Hernández (talk · history · tag) and Federal pardons in the United States (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US President Donald Trump announces that he will pardon the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández (pictured). (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ (if and when) Former president of Honduras Juan Orlando Hernández, imprisoned in the United States for drug trafficking and money laundering, is granted a federal pardon.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, New Yorker, NYT, NYT2, Times of India
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: ITN likes to post convictions of former national leaders and a pardon seems of similar significance. Related topics which the news reports connect with this include the 2025 Honduran general election and Operation Southern Spear. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Again, this is absolutely not notable enough or impactful for ITN. WP:NTRUMP.   Jalapeño   (u t g) 10:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is but one of dozens of similar high-level figures pardoned by this adminstration that most RS find dubious. Focusing on one makes zero sense for ITN. Masem (t) 12:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) US teen Mohammed Ibrahim released from Israeli prison

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus to post will not develop. The Kip (contribs) 05:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Detention of Mohammed Zaher Ibrahim (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ US teen Mohammed Zaher Ibrahim is released from Israeli prison after more than nine months in detention. (Post)
News source(s): Al Jazeera, The Washingtonpost
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: News that is widely reported worldwide is significant due to its age, nationality, and detention circumstances. The Wikipedia article has been updated and well-sourced. Haziran11 (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit POINTy. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I allot myself one point a month, for sanity sake. I'm not being disruptive or anything. Scuba 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

[edit]

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1325955974"