Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

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 (dark green when in dark mode) appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

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.

• Archives of posted stories

Nominator's comments: Texas congresswoman who once was the Chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Very fresh news, so article may need further updating. Flip ^and Flopped ツ 01:40, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Nepali mountaineer known for record‐setting speed ascents. ItsShandog (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support The disaster itself is notable and receives media coverage, so the nomination should focus on the story instead of Purja. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Merged nom - ArionStar (talk · contribs) nominated the broader avalanche article a few hours later, so I've merged it in here. Support, receiving sustainable news coverage, in the news, Purja seems to be a "top of his field" sort of character, so both the incident and his article should be bolded per WP:ITNRDBLURB. — Knightof theswords 15:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Support alt blurb as the avalanche and Purja are notable. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support blurb articles are ok. Grimes 2 16:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think focusing on Purja is wrong. Its not clear he would meet the "major figure", but if we treat this as "death as the story", then yes, this fits. That said, there are also two other people that died that have blue-linkes. Yukta's was created in the wake of this event and likely does not meet BLP1E (all sources are from this event's coverage), but the other one Al Harthy is definitely beyond BLP1E and in decent shape if that was just an RD. So to include Purja (featured or not) and not Al Harthy is a problem. Hence why the first blurb is a better start, "In Pakistan, an avalanche on Broad Peak kills ten climbers, including mountaineers Nirmal Purja and Nadhira Al Harthy." Masem (t) 16:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  I don't see the need for the Nirmal Purja article to be bolded. ArionStar (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  Agreed Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  Agreed. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Comment / Suggestion: Let's consider a blurb with a bolded link to 2026 Broad Peak disaster a separate nom from the RD now for Nirmal Purja, shall we? --PFHLai (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  I prefer his article being mentioned in the blurb, only. ArionStar (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  It makes more sense to me to have a blurb on 2026 Broad Peak avalanche without mentioning specific victims, and have Nirmal Purja and Nadhira Al Harthy on the RD line. That would be three separate ITN candidates, to be evaluated and promoted to ITN separately. --PFHLai (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support bolded disaster since that is the notable event. Good nomination, notable as event, so the RDB is acceptable This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Split noms. No need to single out Purja if we have two other individuals with articles who were killed as well. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  Please feel free to nominate the other wikibios for RD as separate candidates. --PFHLai (talk) 18:27, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  I'm not going to unmerge without consensus considering they were already merged. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support The original blurb seems ok. My main qualm is that Purja's article has some controversial sections about sexual assault allegations and The Himalayan Times. These need careful scrutiny to ensure accuracy and compliance. They could also use some clarification as I'm not fully understanding the fuss about the newspaper coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:32, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: American actor. Best known for his role in The Sopranos. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Not yet ready Several unsourced paragraphs and unsourced acting credits section. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Composer and musician José Villalobos Cavero, better known as Pepe Villalobos. The so-called "King of Festejo", he was an important figure in Peru's música criolla/Afro-Peruvian music scene. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌 🧸 08:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support everything is sourced. Jaguarnik (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Music journalist. Edited Billboard magazine for 20 years. Article is in surprisingly good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 23:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support (After doing a bit more work on the article.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Not yet ready Article still has a couple of CN tags. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Done. All cited now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Italian footballer. One of the greatest defenders to ever grace the game Shakya2007 (talk) 05:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support Excellent quality article, everything is cited and it is comprehensive. He seems like a very big name in football - might I suggest a blurb? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Sure you can! Shakya2007 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support citation problems solved by one dedicated user, now credited. I would lean blurb due to achievements, honours and legacy but I probably read more about football than most users here. Then again, if the article has conveyed to others his importance, then it is evident. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment I cannot vouch for where he would sit in terms of greatest players, but I will note the article does describe why he may be considered one, as to be appropriate for a "major figure" blurb consideration. Masem (t) 16:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Oppose blurb OLDMANDIES. Manner of death not notable. Death has no direct notable impact. Let's try to be serious here. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• He was 66. What are the parameters for your OLDMANDIES (which every closing admin ignores anyway)? Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Ignore OLDMANDIES. ArionStar (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

What do you mean "let's be serious here", @Orbitalbuzzsaw. He's listed as Vital 5, and we blurb a lot of people who are Vital 5. There's a case to be made that he shouldn't be blurbed, but it's 100% arguable that he should be blurbed. So don't stay stuff like that, save it for those that we don't consider vital. Nfitz (talk) 04:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

His death is not notable, and whatever his vital status may be he is not a household name anywhere except maybe Italy. That should be our standard and even then "household name" should be interpreted very conservatively - Thatcher, Mandela, Jane Goodall is the marginal case This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support RD 18213 characters (2960 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes 2 18:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support RD, neutral on blurb Article looks good, but it doesn't really demonstrate how the subject was top of his field or how exactly he was seen as the greatest defends in the sport. A well written and sourced legacy section might do it justice, and could sway me. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  There is one, its under the player career section. Masem (t) 22:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support on quality because all requirements are met. Neutral on the blurb proposal. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 18:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Regarding a blurb Baresi is right on the grey area for this, and I actually thought of including him in that list I posted recently of footballers that would qualify for a blurb, but eventually didn't. I can see RS calling him "one of the greats", "a legend", an "icon" and so on. If you made me choose I'd edge just against it, but I couldn't make a strong argument against it either. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  You finally agree with me, for once lmao Shakya2007 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support RD & blurb - Article is well written and properly sourced. He was one of the best ever in his position so would be fine with a blurb especially given the quality of this article. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 22:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support blurb One of the best players of all time and a world cup winner. He is also described as a legend by news such as NYT. Sharrdx (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Oppose blurb. RD blurbs should be reserved for cases where the death and/or funeral itself could support its own article. Example; Death of Jeffrey Epstein. Abductive (reasoning) 07:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment Kevin Keegan won the Ballon d'Or twice and didn't even get an RD. If this guy is so good, how come he didn't win it at all? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  As I'm sure you know, User:Andrew Davidson, there's always a huge bias towards high-scoring forwards. He was runner-up in 1989. Do you know who else never won it - Thierry Henry and David Beckham. Keegan's article remained problematic. You were the first person to call for Keegan to be blurbed. Nfitz (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Oppose blurb A great player but I don't think any sports deaths beyond the likes of Pelé or Tom Brady should make it -- I don't think that Baresi was quite up there. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Oppose blurb per Abductive. Subject is not a household name like Maradona or Mandela. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Argentine actor and comedian, best known during the 1960s and 1970s as one half of a comedy duo with es:Mario Sánchez (actor). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌 🧸 07:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: First prime minister of Lithuania after its independence from the Soviet Union. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Comment as the first post-Soviet prime minister of a newly independent country, a blurb might be appreciated. In any case, the article needs work: more sources and probably more detail on her political career, especially as prime minister. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support blurb per above. Kevinishere15 (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Oppose blurb The fact she was the first post-Soviet prime minister of Lithuania isn't a compelling argument for a blurb. In its current shape, the article contains only one paragraph about her premiership, which explains that she was elected to the office by the Supreme Council of Lithuania, she immediately faced troubles as Gorbachev set an economic embargo, she travelled around the world to gain diplomatic support for negotiations with Gorbachev regarding the embargo, and she eventually resigned as a prime minister after nine months. This clearly fails to demonstrate any notability for a blurb. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support The article is decently long and in good enough shape. As far as I can see the original nomination was not for a blurb but a RD, which seems reasonable. Yakikaki (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support RD Article is of sufficient quality. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Two {CN} tags remaining. Please add more REFs. Also, what did she do as Minister of Agriculture.... etc. -- if it's important enough to be mentioned in the intro (which actually mentioned quite a few jobs), one may expect at least some prose on these parts of her career in the main body of the wikibio. The long intro makes this reader feel that many important details are missing from the wikibio. --PFHLai (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: This seems to be quite a crisis and dozens have drowned in the attempt. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Major support. This is being talked about worldwide and is being called worse than the 2021 incident. Over a dozen deaths have been reported today with dozens more possibly caused by it to. Article needs expansion and more citations though. Also sections. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Lean support on notability While incidents at the border between Morocco and Spain aren't new, the current incident is international and is also receiving major sustained coverage. The estimates of the undocumented immigrants that have crossed the Ceuta border have ranged from 2,000 per TVE to about 40,000 per Antena 3. The article needs a bit more expansion before it meets adequate quality for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Adequate quality met The bolded article now meets sufficient quality for potential posting on ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Trout slap for labeling it an "invasion" ffs. I changed the heading. Neutral on merits but yes the article is too short now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I think that the flagrantly racist original headline deserves more than a trout. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

The word "incident" seems too bland and vague while the word "irruption" is too obscure. See WP:EUPHEMISM, Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Well, calling it an "invasion" is racist.[3] Do better. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

See you at WP:ANI. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I’ll second that. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Strong support I was about to nominate it, but Andrew was faster. ArionStar (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support It's not only significant geopolitically, it also has many casualties. I would say this incident is not just a routine morocco-spain border incident given the scale. Although the article should probably be longer. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Oppose the current blurb at least, which is a highly sensationalist and partial depiction of an incident in which (according to El Pais) at least 18 people have died. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

And to add - 'Thousands of migrants... cross massively the border...' needs a serious grammar tidy-up. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Why? ArionStar (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Both because in English it would be typical to put the adjective either before the verb or after the object - "they quickly cross the border" or "they cross the border quickly", but not *"they cross quickly the border", and because the English adverb massively is not generally used to mean 'en masse'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

"massively", in Wiktionary, means: "In a massive manner, in a way that appears large, heavy or imposing. ArionStar (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

I have resolved all this I hope agreeably by simply removing "massively". Either way, we tend to avoid such editorialism when writing blurbs. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Oppose blurb, needs further rewriting. The crossing of the border did not "cause" an incident, it was the "incident". There is also no guarantee the migrants were "from Morocco" in an ultimate origin sense, as the blub is written (if it is intended to be geographical, "to Ceuta from Morocco" or similar wold be clearer). No current view on the significance. CMD (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment Added Altblurb 2 in response to the criticisms of blurbs proposed insofar. I’ll stay undecided on my support or oppose for now considering there’s clearly a lot of discourse around this nom specifically that I do not want to get tangled up in. --Spec tral Ion 04:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

That's better, but I think the mention of the death toll still misses a key point: all those who have died are migrants who have died in their attempt to reach (perceived) safety. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Updated Altblurb 2 again based on the new comments while I was sleeping. Altblurb 3 seems to be gaining traction though, so this might not be very impactful. --Spec tral Ion 17:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support on notability/coverage etc but Oppose the current blurbs for some of the issues above. Small fixes without making it too long could be referring to the dead as "migrants" which would get across the point they died attempting to cross. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Wait The scale of this crossing is the largest of any single movement across the Morocco-Spain border in years, but key quantitative metrics are still unconfirmed among reliable sources, and the proposed blurbs are too vague to fully capture the full scale of the crossing at present. There is a vast discrepancy in the number of migrants who made the crossing being reported in reliable sources, ranging from 1,000 to more than 50,000 in the past few days. Similarly, the fatalities arising from migrants who tragically died while attempting to make the same crossing is unclear, with Spanish police reports suggesting the total will rise in coming days. Given the mass deployment of Guardia Civil and Army units to Ceuta, I expect we'll have a clearer picture of the full scale of the crossing and related casualties over the weekend. This also gives a good opportunity to improve the quality of the article and flesh out the body as it currently lacks any coherent sections or structure despite being decently well sourced. Oppius Brutus (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Wait per Oppius Brutus. I also think it would be good if any blurb specified that Ceuta is in Africa, because a lot of the heat and rhetoric about this tragic situation is eliding that. For instance, Italy is calling for Spain to be suspended from the Schengen Agreement, as though people can just walk from Ceuta to Madrid. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support in principle, oppose these blurbs. This is an unusual incident - official estimates are 49,000 illegal border crossings in one afternoon - and the death toll is substantial. It's a major humanitarian incident. The article is short but does meet our minimum requirements. However all the proposed blurbs are dehumanising and anti-migrant; I particularly dislike 'overwhelm'. The blurb should be a plain factual statement, without emotive terms. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment A key part of a blurb should mention this came after Spain's top court ruled migrants from Morocco crossing into these territories cannot be returned to Morocco. Masem (t) 11:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  That seems appropriate to explain in the article, but too much detail for the blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 12:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• I've proposed altblurb3, as "crossed" is used by several news outlets (The Guardian, CNN, BBC). An alternative could be "breached" (Al Jazeera, DW, Reuters). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 12:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support Altblurb3 it is simple and to the point. We always should be very cautious when reporting on these kinds of incidents, as we don't want to become a mouthpiece for hateful people. Altblurb3 is the most neutral one. The event seems very notable, and the article seems good enough. I normally would say that we should list the reason for the incident, but it might be a bit too complex to list out in the short blurb.

Gaismagorm (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Forty-three deaths now. ArionStar (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support altblurb3 This blurb is more concise, simple, and neutral than the other blurbs. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support A border incident involving illegal migrants with casualties is a very big deal, and the story receives widespread media coverage globally. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support Very significant border incident, with several EU countries threatening to "suspend" free travel from Spain. Article looks very complete now. Also significant casualties. Would prefer a blurb that mentions both the currently accepted number of migrants involved, as well as the current number of casualties. Khuft (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support Massively impactful situation, both politically for European relations and in terms of death count. As for the blurb, I think altblurb 3 should be the one that is posted. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 19:05, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Major support Main talk in European news. Support blurb 1. PalleyCov2030 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support blurb 3. Some migrants say they were told to attempt to cross the border by Morocco; one country using refugees/migrants as a weapon is certainly noteworthy. Morocco opposes Spanish possession of those two cities. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support. Covered prominently by major media outlets, article is in decent shape. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support A major humanitarian and diplomatic crisis. Widely covered in the news, and the article is thoroughly sourced and not too stubby with no orange tagged sections. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support blurb 3. It gives the most specific number of migrants and has the most neutral tone. Snosibsnob (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support blurb 3, but the blurb should mention that these migrants are predominantly men. Some1 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Why? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Posted Alt 3. Spencer ^{T• C} 02:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment Shouldn't a blurb note that most went straight home again - about 80%. Just a day out on the beach. Nfitz (talk) 04:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  Them crossing the border in the first place is the main story, the blurb is long enough as it is. Greenflipper (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@Spencer: the death toll has now raised to sixty-seven. Could you please update the ITN? Yacàwotçã (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

@Yacàwotçã: Thanks for the notice. The death toll has just been updated to 67. Next time, you may get a quicker response from WP:ERRORS. --PFHLai (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: American football player and College Football Hall of Famer. Article is in pretty good shape bar a section about his broadcasting career. I'll try to sort that out shortly. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support Sourcing cleaned up. Quality and breadth is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support, quality is sufficient. CMD (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Posted to RD. Spencer ^{T• C} 02:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Irish musician. Died on this date. Could be a blurb Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Comment Surprised to hear this - I will Support after the citation issues are fixes. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Last CN tag removed - happy to support RD now, the article looks a lot better than when this was posted. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support outside of the last few tags left. No need for blurb. Greenflipper (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Article is not ready due to some uncited text in prose, such as in the influence section. I strongly oppose blurbing as he is not an international household name. ~2026-42137-24 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Prose now blurbed. The only CN tags now were added to the names of singles which is an issue we ran into with Penelope Keith, however it was mostly agreed that per WP:V that sources aren't necessary. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  No, seems that Keith was mostly sourced when posted. —Bagumba (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  If you look at the discussion around it, WP:V came up in this context. On the article you can see some of the unsourced appearances are still not cn tagged.

  I do know that by the time it was posted a lot of citations were added, I remember finding a few. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Regarding sourcing, MOS:LISTOFWORKS reads: Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged ... WP:CIRCULAR says: Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources ... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly. —Bagumba (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for linking MOS:LISTOFWORKS, I hadn't read it before. Not sure why you linked WP:CIRCULAR as I'm not suggesting using wikipedia as a source for his songs. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Not sure why you linked WP:CIRCULAR ...: Maybe it wasn't the case for Penelope Keith, but it's sometimes argued that blue links to works or a "main" link to a discography are exemptions for citations. —Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support Article has been expanded and the cn tags are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support Article offers decent coverage, and reasonably sourced. SeoR (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support - ready for RD. Good work.BabbaQ (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Discography sections § The Frames and § The Swell Season remain unsourced. § Films and television sparsely cited too. See sourcing discussion above.—Bagumba (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

  Ok, doing, as if there will be anything to be doubted. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: There is a rather significant number of worldwide outlets reporting on this story (currently frontpage on BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NYT, Washington Post etc.), even more so with the ongoing drama with people trapped inside the mall. ~2026-41912-68 (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Wait for now for more in info, but this seems to be a major earthquake due to the extensive damage reported. NotKringe (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support. Many people killed/missing, with hundreds injured. The quake has already received international coverage. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• (削除) Wait. Not enough information yet and only two deaths reported so far, (削除ここまで) though I expect that will rise. I recommend we wait 24 hours for more information to become available and incorporated into the article before making an assessment of significance & article quality. Modest Genius ^talk 14:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Neutral. 48 hours later, this seems borderline. The death toll is surprisingly low for such an intense quake, but I'm seeing different numbers reported in different places. Neither 20 deaths nor 387 injuries (as stated in the blurb) appear in the article, which contradicts itself in places. International media attention has dropped away. I don't object to posting this, but I'm not particularly supportive either. If it is posted, the blurb should be vague about casualties (e.g. 'dozens' and 'hundreds'), to avoid a back and forth over the exact figures. Modest Genius ^talk 10:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• (削除) Wait - USGS is reporting this is 6.8. But clearly there is damage, but how localized? Need more information. (削除ここまで) Nfitz (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Neutral. Agree with User:Modest Genius. It's borderline on notability, enduring coverage, and damage. Support alt-blurb 2. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• (削除) Wait per above, Likely to become a bigger story and more casualties. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC) (削除ここまで)reply
• wait as several sections (impacts, response) need expansion and some cleanup, then support for a major quake that caused significant damage and whose effects are receiving int'l coverage >>scourge zoned (it/its) 19:45, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Wait also per above. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 19:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Support if scourgezoned's criteria is met. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Wait for details to become clear + article to be fleshed out, but support on notability. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support I think the article has enough at this point and also PAGER system estimates >80% probability of at least 100 deaths (especially given that mall collapse since PAGER only estimates direct seismic casualties) and a 37% chance of over 1000. TaqPCR (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Context for anyone else wondering why people are still using pagers - PAGER Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Where's the references for the deaths User:TaqPCR? CBC says 18 deaths with several more missing, including 3 at the mall. This doesn't sound like 100 deaths. Nfitz (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I believe that this is the website TaqPCR is referring to. So, while only 18 deaths have so far been confirmed, the USGS thinks that 100+ fatalities is likely. Chorchapu (talk | edits) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  That is correct, I was only discussing modeled casualties instead of reported casualties. TaqPCR (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  With only two sites appearing to cause the deaths, only so few left missing, I think we are beyond modelled casualties. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Strong support Confirmed multiple casualties, international news coverage, hundreds affected. User:WoodElf 19:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Comment I expressed concern about the 7.1 magnitude in the blurb yesterday, but no comment. We usually (always?) report the magnitude in an international scale - this one was 6.8. But in our blurb we are using instead the Japan Meteorological Agency magnitude scale, with no indication of units. The media is using the 6.8 number generally, why would we blurb using the Japan scale? Nfitz (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I agree, we're not a Japanese site, we should use the international scale. TaqPCR (talk) 00:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I think the prudent thing is to nominate an altblurb but making sure to denote "M_w" instead of "magnitude". Edit: Boldly added. ~2026-41987-58 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I think we should we consider using "magnitude 6.8 (M_w)" since I think the language is more commonly understood while still clarifying the exact unit and being one of the supported ways for it to be written. TaqPCR (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support Casualties are expected to be very large, and receiving lots of news coverage. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support but omit mention of the magnitude from JMA or USGS because of the above debate; key takeaway is the damage and casualties it resulted. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  What debate, @Dora the Axe-plorer? I don't see anyone supporting the use of the 7.1 number. Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Why not? That's what the media are predominantly using. And that's what we've always used AFAIK, @Dora the Axe-plorer. Nfitz (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Incorrect. A quick search reveals the media using both magnitudes and attributing to either agencies; so either the blurb omits the magnitude or mentions both value. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I think we could use "magnitude 6.8 (M_w)". People using English Wikipedia will generally be familiar with that scale so it's appropriate to use it over the Japanese scale and the wording is still familiar (instead of just putting Mw 6.8). TaqPCR (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  "familiar with that scale", the mainstream media does not even identify the specific scales used to calculate them Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  It is not common for blurbs to include the magnitude if there are two or more widely-reported readings. This ITN entry for the 2024 Noto earthquake is an example. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  I can't find whether removal of magnitude there was a one-person decision or a broader consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Posted Step hen 01:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: French DJ. Found dead on this date. Greenflipper (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the prose part of the article is fine, but the discography is mostly unreferenced. That should be addressed before I could support this nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 12:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  The discography section is now fully sourced Golan1911 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Not ready Sourcing issues in prose in addition the discography sourcing issue mentioned above. ~2026-42137-24 (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Prose and discography section fully sourced Golan1911 (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support: Most of the Discography has sources now, only missing in the EP and Remixes sections. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Oppose for now as there is an orange tag for unsourced material. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC) reply

That orange banner was deleted, the discography is now sourced Golan1911 (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Mexican artist; died recently after being diagnosed with leukemia GreenLipstickLesbian 💌 🧸 20:33, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support, I see no issues with the article, her exhibitions are well soured and her career is covered well.

Snosibsnob (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Support Article is in good shape. Shame there's nothing interesting enough for DYK, else I'd have nominated.--Laun chba ller 23:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: Chilean athlete at the 1951 Pan American games; remained active in sports administration until her death and lit the cauldron at the 2023 Pan American Games GreenLipstickLesbian 💌 🧸 07:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Support, fine for the main page. CMD (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 19:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC) reply
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: celebrated Japanese mystery writer, died earlier this week but death announced today Khuft (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Wait Article is good, however the section on his death is just a sentence long and needs to be expanded before being posted. CatPerson987 (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Not yet ready Awards section is mostly unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Awards table still needs more REFs. Ditto for the tables and bullet-points following that. --PFHLai (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

Nominator's comments: star of The Goodies and I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again who had a second life as a birdwatcher Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Not ready a beloved figure but I count ten completely unsourced paragraphs (not including ones which have one citation then continue for a few sentences). Some of the television content has a WP:PROSELINE appearance as if it was updated every time he was seen on TV, instead of speaking in broad strokes about which were the most relevant to his career. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC) reply

  Unfortunately I agree with this assessment - his comedy career is badly under-referenced and there's extensive WP:PROSELINE. I've added two cleanup tags. I'm also unsure whether the lists of books and TV shows need better referencing. Modest Genius ^talk 13:17, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Update The article got a lot of attention and it was the #2 top read yesterday. Several editors have been updating it and it has no {{cn }} or orange tags. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

Not ready, despite improvements made, many paragraphs are still unsourced and like unknown said, it has extensive WP:PROSELINE that makes it unsuitable for RD LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC) reply

• Aforementioned sourcing deficiency and issue with PROSELINE persist. --PFHLai (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Wikipedia In the news
• Main Page discussions

• Noindexed pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed