This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form;
any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.
Iranian presidentMasoud Pezeshkian says that Iran has the "necessary will" to end the war, provided that the "guarantees required to prevent repetition of the aggression" are met. (RFE/RL)
U.S. presidentDonald Trump says that U.S. forces plan to end operations in Iran within about two to three weeks while continuing military action, stating that the withdrawal is not contingent on reaching an agreement with Iran. (AFP via RFI)
Stocks in the U.S. also rise following reports that presidentDonald Trump has told aides that he is willing to end the war without securing the Strait of Hormuz. (Quartz)
(Closed) Death Penalty for Terrorists Law in Israel
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.
Comment: Not ITN/R as far as I can tell. Regards, Andumé (Talk | Contribs) 19:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Gotitbro. Furthermore, the actual wording of the law makes no mention of the ethnic origin of those sentenced to death; one must exercise caution when considering the interpretations put forward, as they may be subject to bias. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Maintain the death penalty in both law and practice
Permit its use for ordinary crimes but ...
Retain capital punishment only for exceptional crimes...
Have completely abolished it
Oppose Lots of countries have and use death penalties. See map for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
OpposeCapital punishment in Israel has never been abolished. This expands the scope of previous legislation but hardly of significance for ITN to bother with. Gotitbro (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I don't think anywhere in the world has a death penalty law that only applies to people of a certain race, though? Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
That might very well be the interpretation but that is certainly not the statute. Gotitbro (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, obviously not from the "country changes its death penalty law" angle, but given the fact that it applies exclusively to a certain ethnic group, which is why it has been so controversial (and what makes it notable enough for ITN). Oppose on quality for now due to the orange tag. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page discussion, it seems like the RfC is WP:SNOWing in support of the current wording, so this oppose on quality is purely procedural until the RfC is closed and the tag removed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:15, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
We need to be careful with the 'it applies exclusively to a certain ethnic group' angle as that is not in the law that was passed. The letter of the law focuses on intent, acts committed to 'deny the existence of the State of Israel.' It's akin to a hate crime law, increasing punishment for a crime due to mindset. Dr Fell (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
All reliable secondary sources (in particular those cited above) state that it apply only to Palestinians. Even if the letter of the law doesn't make it explicit, all the sources agree in their analysis, and ignoring that aspect would, in my opinion, mean we fail to rely on secondary sources for analysis, which is especially critical for such a contentious decision. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Not suggesting we ignore RS analysis/speculation, but it's important to anchor that in the actual wording of the law. And the law is entirely focused on intent and mindset, not a specific ethnonationalist group. Are we blurbing that a law was passed, or are we blurbing how that law might be applied according to various RS crystal balls? (I'm not a RS, but I'm more troubled by the limits on the right to appeal.) Dr Fell (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
We are not going to list the "actual wording of the law" in a blurb, so any such "anchoring" would required an interpretation of the law's wording, such as one that finds that "the law is entirely focused on intent and mindset, not a specific ethnonationalist group." Policy requires us not to engage in such interpretation of the primary resources, but rely on those in secondary resources. The fact that your interpretation of the law is directly in opposition of that found in secondary sources demonstrates why the policy exists. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability - This is a massive change in how Israel invokes the death penalty, having only done so twice in its history. However I oppose the current blurb as it fails to convey what actually makes the new law notable. Both reliable sources & those backing the bill describe it as explicitly targeting Palestinians, including non-Israeli citizens from the West Bank. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability If a country has a significant development or change in its policy on capital punishment, which in turn garners in depth worldwide news coverage, I see no reason why that shouldn’t merit a blurb. That is clearly the case here. The international coverage of this is widespread and overwhelming. The current blurb, though, should obviously be modified and the article not posted until the above mentioned issues are addressed. FlipandFlopped㋡ 22:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support with changed blurb: The story here is that this is a capital punishment without appeal law targeting specifically Palestinians, per Haaretz and ToI. Parabolist (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Gotitbro, they already have a death penalty law in Israel. We don't need ITN for every change in law in different countries. Guz13 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - bill specifically targeting an ethnicity that's in the news round the blue marble. — Knightoftheswords 03:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I would support this if the article's quality is improved. The updated material is extremely WP:PROSELINE. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment- it seems to me there should be more context in the blurb, as if it's simply terrorists then the next PM could easily have some of the current government (or various Mossad operations over the years) executed. Presumably there are details that would preclude executing those whose terrorism was authorized by the state. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it's specifically terrorism with the aim of denying the existence of the State of Israel. The last altblurb does touch on this in a more concise way, calling it aimed at persecuting anti-Zionist murderers, although by doing this it presents the specific text of the law as its underlying aim and glosses over how RS describe it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Though that does seem to conflate Zionists with those who simply support Israel without the Zionist policies, such as ethnic cleansing. Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. As unfortunate as this news is, the passing of the law isn't really significant (given the IDF's track record of having killed anyone perceived to be terrorists, anyway). It might be a formalisation of said practice, but do we actually post news of this of other nations who repealed/strengthen the death penalty for other charges? It's also dependent if this law would really pass and not be challenged by their supreme court. In fact, there are legal challenges against this law within Israel.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 00:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose largely per Gotitbro and ZKang. Israel's never formally abolished the death penalty + settlers and the IDF have already extrajudicially killed/executed/etc Palestinians aplenty over the last few years and decades (some legitimate terrorists, many innocent civilians), this just lets the government legally do so (at least, assuming the courts don't throw it out, which they seem likely to do). TheKip(contribs) 04:13, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The notability and the scale of significance of this law appears to be on the low side. Also reasons stated from Gotitbro and ZKang. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unfortunately, this does not seem so significant given all the tragic events and killings in the middle-east during the present time period. Tradediatalk 18:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Israel and ‘Palestine’ have been at war since 1948. Per this law, captured enemy combatants may be subject to execution following conviction in certain cases. Not significant given the context of this decades-long conflict. One observes both the teacup and the storm. Dr Fell (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
What? Although partially under military occupation, the Palestinian Authority is nominally at peace with Israel since the Oslo Accords. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:50, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The quality of the bolded article appears to be fair. As for notability, there is clear international coverage by reputable sources of the Supreme Court ruling. For this nomination, the scale of significance is in need of discussion.CastleFort1 (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
oppose subnational decision, not ITN-worthy. We are not going to post every subnational and polemic court decisions, even those from the SCOTUS _-_Alsor (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb is wrong. The Court only remanded the case back to lower courts to review under strict scrutiny standards, and did not rule it unconstitutional. While trans rights is an important subject this is not a landmark decision in them. Masem (t) 16:01, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Withdraw Given this new information clarifying that the US Supreme Court returned the case back to the lower courts for strict scrutiny, the scale of significance now appears to be limited to Colorado. It is here therefore that I withdraw this nomination. CastleFort1 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
This is incorrect. It ruled that talk-based conversion therapy is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment, but did not give judgement on other forms. Jollyrime (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Forms of conversion therapy were ruled to be constitutionally protected 8-1.
The blurb is correct. Jollyrime (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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) Ali Zafar wins defamation lawsuit
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:Ali Zafar (talk·history·tag) Blurb:Ali Zafar(pictured) wins the defamation case against Meesha Shafi's allegations of sexual harassment. (Post) Alternative blurb:Ali Zafar(pictured) wins the defamation suit against Meesha Shafi's allegations of sexual harassment. Alternative blurb 2: A court directs Meesha Shafi to pay Rs.5 million for Ali Zafar's(pictured) defamation.
Oppose Personal affair, insignificant. --SpectralIon 14:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose– A single-sentence update makes this unsuitable for featuring even disregarding the ITNSIGNIF and BLP concerns. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:34, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and snow close on quality and on notability. Personal affair, local celeb, this goes nowhere. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and suggest WP:SNOW. Good faith nom, however I don't have anything to say that wouldn't be different from anything else said. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 15:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
One or both nominated events are 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.
Wait until a new PM is chosen. Article also isn't updated. qw3rty.exe✉︎ 01:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
As the PM is nominated by the parliment, and per the AP, "Upon parliamentary approval, he is set to be replaced by party chairman Nyam-Osoryn Uchral, who is currently serving as parliament speaker.", that unless some unlikelihood that Uchral will be approved, we shouldn't have to wait. Masem (t) 02:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election
Support He is going to be replaced by someone below him, there is no reason to wait. Guz13 (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
For clarification his successor has already been chosen in Nyam-Osoryn Uchral. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 01:51, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Support Both bolded articles appear to be ready. Sourcing issues within Nyam-Osoryn Uchral's article have been resolved. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Support Both articles are of sufficient quality. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Deceased child soldier following enlistment "expansion" by the Basij in the context of the 2026 Iran War.User:VitoxxMass (talk) 1:43, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Most of the "background" section's sources don't mention Alireza Jafari as they're just about child soldiers in Iran more generally, raising WP:SYNTH concerns. Ignoring that, the article has little prose about Alireza Jafari himself, making it basically a stub. FallingGravity 16:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Too short, not ready. I have also doubts perhaps about notability but have not done enough research to say for certain. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 17:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Why does this article even exist? ~2026-20113-12 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, since the topic of this article wasn't notable before his death, I've marked this as a nonstandard RD nom. — Knightoftheswords 02:28, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
I disagree and reverted, as this nomination is a standard RD nom, and whether the person is notable or not does not change the type of nom. This new "nonstandard" type (which was BOLDly created without clear consensus btw) should only be used sparingly, for nonbiographical articles, or "group" articles. Natg 19 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
The Syrian Army says that drone attacks have targeted several of their bases near the Iraqi border. However, the Syrian Army also says that several of the drones were shot down and did not say where the drones came from. (Reuters)
A human rights organization in Haiti claims that the death toll from the previous day's massacre in the Artibonite department was at least 70 people, higher than official reports. (DW)
NASA begins the countdown for the launch of Artemis II, set to be the first crewed mission to the Moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, with liftoff scheduled for 1 April. (The Register)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Prominent Hungarian linguist, translator, poet and essayistEinstein2 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 08:11, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: pioneered Sri Lanka's first successful kidney transplant projectAbishe (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American sculptor (died March 30, 2026), widely exhibited internationally throughout his life--19h00s (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good and interesting article. Yakikaki (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support appears to be well sourced. Jahaza (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. Good Article status. SpencerT•C 21:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former president (until 2025)BastianMAT (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support On notability and the article doesn't seem to have any issue
Comment Two of the awards in the Honors section need sources. It's not enough for me to oppose, but I'd prefer if they were sourced before posting. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I've had a good look and have partly sourced one aspect. As president he is the grand master of both orders, in other words he gets to award these honours as head of state, so he automatically became master with his election in 2020, as would be the case for such honours all over the world. He did receive the Yellow Star at a lower rank for his previous political work in 2010, which is now sourced. So I suspect this won't be easy to full source, however there are lots of photos of him wearing the two orders' regalia when he gives out the these awards to other people. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I am now willing to support this nomination. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: End of one of the longest-running insurgencies. Notably, "the rebellion controlled nearly a third of the country with an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 fighters at its peak in the mid-2000s." Article is in good shape / worth highligting.Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 20:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support end of a long-running conflict, but note that two remaining commanders have said they will continue fighting This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This marks the end of one of the longest running conflict in modern history and the article is well written. Guz13 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
oppose self-declared "mission accomplished" means noting today. Have they surrendered? trump claims the Iran wAR is "won." Psephguru (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The dissolution of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (KPK), the closest comparison in recent memory to this event, was posted last May. However, the mandate of this announcement comes from India rather than the decentralized Naxalites themselves. Keep that in mind when assessing this event's notability. Departure– (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Suggest rewording Reading the article, there was objective evidence they ended the insurgency (by how few were left), so that's important, but the wording implies a possibly dubious claim (in a world where we are dealing with the amount of govt propaganda from the current US adminstration). A wording that emphasizes why they have declared it would be helpful to remove the dubiousness. Masem (t) 23:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I've added the altblurb which reflects why they declared victory. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It seems that the Home Minister set an arbitrary deadline and so is going to claim that he achieved it, even though there are still some holdouts. It's just PR. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Proclamation not surrender (unlike the PKK in Turkey). This may well be the death knell but with holdout uncertainty we shouldn't be featuring any of this. Indeed the comparisions to mission accomplished by Bush and recent Trump proclamations may well be made. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on timing. Remember that we are meant to feature quality updates reflecting recent events. As much as I don't like penalizing events for being drawn out, this conflict has been winding down for years. Consequently, there is not really all that much of an update to the article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:37, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Politician sets a deadline of 31 March for a 58-year-old conflict to end. Remaining insurgents vow to fight on. Politician claims victory one day before deadline anyway. Eh, no. "X declares victory over Y" is very different from "the conflict between X and Y ends" or "X and Y agree peace terms". Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support since the way ITN and such insurgencies work means that there is a decent chance that the actual end of the insurgency won't get posted, a la how we never posted India surpassing China population-wise. Considering that the scale of the insurgency has indeed significantly been reduced, I think that this highlight is worth posting symbolically. Any blurb has to emphasize however that its an Indian declaration. — Knightoftheswords 13:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
If we do that we are posting politician's claims, rather than facts. Imagine if we applied that to Trump... Black Kite (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
If Trump declared the end of a neoconfederate or communist insurgency that at one point controlled large swathes of America but now only has three minor commanders, then yes. This is not a "we're gonna get a peace deal with Iran any day now!" — Knightoftheswords 00:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose– I share Black Kite's concern above, as I wouldn't want to parrot the Indian government's propaganda. Still, if this announcement triggers a significant update to the article, I would be comfortable posting this. Right now, the lead has been expanded more than the body, which is just not an appropriate front-page feature. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - 2 Naxalite commanders have declared they will continue the campaign, and its one sided. JaxsonR (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Actually, support, I doubt these commanders will have any impact. JaxsonR (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support based on this. Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Support End of an over 50 year old conflict. I choose alternative blurb 3 Squalwer (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The article still lists this as an ongoing low-level insurgency and that there are still two commanders at large vowing to continue the armed struggle. In light of those two well-sourced facts, the Indian government's statement is untrue and should be classed as information warfare. If we have reliable, independent, and preferably academic sources which confirm that this conflict has an end date, then they should be added to the article. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
THe change adding the death was unsourced so I have reverted it. As such OpposeLavalizard101 (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The death is now sourced in the article. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support 4946 characters (725 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 19:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 21:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
So Lionel Jospin who governed France for 5 years didn't get an RD but this obscure cleric gets one? Varoon2542 (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
@Varoon2542: Anyone with a Wikipedia article is eligible to get an RD if their article meets certain quality requirements. Jospin hasn't been posted because his article did not meet those requirements. No determination of relative importance was made. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Does not seem to be ITN/R. (changed nom, which originally marked as ITN/R) Natg 19 (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality Winners and nominees section is unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The awards weren't even nominated last year Elisecars727(talk)☺ 06:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment, Not being ITNR does not mean that an award show/"ITNR-style" item shouldn't be posted. Support conditionally on quality, per reasons below, I'm a lil iffy on significance, but ITN's incredibly stale rn and if we want to commit to being "more global," which has been used for years to justify recurring staleness, we should be expanding the amount of content we cover. The Junos are the biggest Canadian music award show and receive (modest) attention in America. Mainly, I'm hinging my support on if this article can be boosted up to a quality a la, say, 68th Annual Grammy Awards. Perhaps I'll help in that. — Knightoftheswords 07:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, I agree with Knightoftheswords281's thinking. I think the article's now ready to post, it's now fully cited. Blythwood (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I also agree with that thinking, but we should require a substantial, encyclopedic (read: prose-centric) article to counter the lack of greater significance. An article of mostly charts is more suited for an almanac. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose If it’s not ITNR, it’s highly unlikely that it should be. Local music awards aren’t ITN-worthy unless they have at least an international impact, recognition and following (and that of a neighbouring country doesn’t count), let alone when it comes to Canadian music, which is a far cry from being on a par with Eurovision or the Grammys. Frankly, it’s an absurd discussion. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
That's circular reasoning that allows for no new entries at ITNR, nor for any event that is not explicitly listed at ITNR. To take one of the most recent additions, the Game Awards, required the event to be posted five years straight (at minimum) without being at ITNR to demonstrate it is ITNR.
That said, the importance of a national-level award program should be judged by the amount of coverage it gets from sources not of that country. Eg if the only source reporting on it was the Toronto Star, I'd be very concerned. But a quick Google News check shows several American sources (even if they are focusing on Rush's performance), and BBC has covered it in the past. Masem (t) 23:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose These awards aren't significant. Guz13 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support – Relatively significant awards. Not everything needs to be ITN/R. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 21:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Nope, but they should have. — Knightoftheswords 04:05, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
They should not. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
As a Canadian, perhaps I should support this. But it's too trivial, and I Oppose. Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing for significance has been established either for McRae or the Junos here. Simply being the main awards of a particular industry in a specific country is a far cry from that. Gotitbro (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Australian sovereign citizen who killed two Victoria Police officers in August. Mind you that there is precedent for RDs about people who don't have standalone articles (see murder of Brianna Ghey as a keystone example). This is big news in Australia and I think if we want to actually combat systemic bias, we should work to actually feature more stories across the world instead of just reducing the quantity all across the board since "we wouldn't post this if it happened in X country!" (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITNDONT) Henceforth, I propose that we blurb this as well.— Knightoftheswords 03:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD as there is sufficient biographical info, but Oppose blurb as he had long been suspected of the crime, was being manhunted, and only concluded with the police finding and shooting him. Granted: gun crimes in Australia are rare due to gun regulation, but I think that only artificially makes this crime more high profile than other events. We typically do not cover domestic crimes absent some international terrorism angle. Masem (t) 03:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Systemc bias isn't going to be fixed by featuring non-notable stories. No significance whatsoever in the killing of a perp wanted for the death of 2 LEOs. Gotitbro (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
It is extremely significant in Australia and most parts of the world that aren’t the US. A shooting of two officers and a large scale manhunt are basically unheard of. SnowyRiver28(talk) 04:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
That these were police officers in the line of duty only further diminishes its significance. Gotitbro (talk) 06:25, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps in countries where this is a regular occurrence it might. As I mentioned this is extremely rare and significant in Australia. SnowyRiver28(talk) 07:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Is there any precedent on posting articles around sovereign citizens, i.e. is it notable because its to do with a sovereign citizen ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 03:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This was a massive story over the last (near) year, across the country. Gun crime is rare, LEO shootings are rare, and even moreso being on the run for so long. Doobie777 (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom and Doobie777. SnowyRiver28(talk) 07:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb. Only locally notable. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Per Gotitbro. A fugitive is shot dead by the police... wow? Only a local story, only locally notable, not ITN-worthy. A word of advice, Knight: if most of your nominations don’t get through, perhaps you should reconsider your criteria. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb and RD The standard for RD is already so low, I do not understand the desire to lower it further. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose both blurb and RD: Freeman wasn't convicted of anything, and I'm extremely uncomfortable featuring this story, which strongly implies his own wrongdoing, on the main page per WP:BLPCRIME. Note BLP policies apply also to recently deceased persons. Departure– (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Only for automatic consideration to RD (so that we arent arguing about notability or importance routinely). It does not say the absence of a biographical page means no RD but we now have to consider if there is enough bio info in addition to quality to support the RD. Masem (t) 17:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Using the RD template here is poisoning the well. We have a nom that is formatted like an RD, lists the deceased name as the target (even though it's a redirect) and has the RD boilerplate telling us not to discuss significance. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Someone changed it to a "Nonstandard Recent Death" template, which I have never seen before. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb, obviously and Oppose RD for multiple reasons, the main one of which at the moment is the article says "The deceased has not yet been confirmed by Victoria Police to be Freeman." Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose RD - The person nominated does't even have an article about them. Guz13 (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Black Kite; not officially confirmed to b4e dead. SpencerT•C 20:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb The scope of this matter is national at most. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I haven't looked into how much Australia was obsessing over the killing of 2 police, but I don't think we would consider posting someone in the US whose only notability was killing 2 cops in an ambush. Looking it up, in a normal year 44 police die by gunshot in the US versus 1 total in Australia, while the US has 12 times as many people; we would probably post a blurb if one person killed 24 police in the US in a single action. Add in the BLP issues and the entire section of the article on the suspect becomes suspect. That the deceased had been on the run for 216 days does not clear us from BLP rules. Did we post any sort of blurb or RD after the Boston Marathon Bombing suspect was killed during the man-hunt? The biggest difference there was that the blurb for the bombing was probably still up since it took about 2 days for that whole saga to finish. I cannot think of any other recent, large-scale, violent crimes where the perpetrator was not either immediately arrested or dead at the scene.~2026-17182-02 (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
An Iranian missile hits the Makhteshim chemical plant in southern Israel. A warning for the leakage of hazardous materials is issued for the immediate vicinity of the site. (Reuters)
Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Mojtaba Amani, remains in the country despite being declared persona non grata and ordered to leave. The expulsion order prompts opposition from outlawed Iran-armed group Hezbollah and a cabinet boycott by its ministers and allies. (AFP via LBCI)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: New Jersey state politicianEngineerchange (talk) 04:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Article could use a little bit more depth about his contributions has a legislator; has 1 sentence related to committees he was on, but not much beyond that. SpencerT•C 17:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
They're fundamentally different types of institution. The Arab League is much closer in structure to something like NATO or BRICS (or the African Union), while the EU is almost a country itself (it can pass laws that are binding on all members; the Arab League cannot). QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
We do post NATO leadership changes, correct? Ornithoptera (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, article is of adequate quality. Leader of an important international organization. Diversifies ITN. Not stale. — Knightoftheswords 05:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Knightoftheswords281. ArionStar (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I think the article could go into a bit more detail about what he did as foreign minister; in fact, there is no mention of the end of his term in office. The infobox needs updating. Placing NATO and the EU on the same level as the Arab League shows a complete lack of understanding of all three organisations, and that does not detract from the importance of the Arab League. Once my concerns have been addressed, I will support the nomination. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The secretary-general of the Arab League is a minor figure on the international scene. For comparisons, the Arab League is like ASEAN not the EU or even NATO. Varoon2542 (talk)
Neutral on merits, oppose alt1 as "In international relations" is redundant. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose along the lines of others above. The political insignificance of the League has been demonstrated repeatedly, including its almost complete lack of a role during the current war in the Middle East. Yakikaki (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The Arab League is useless as evidenced by all the complaints about it during this Iran war. All they do is issue statements. On the other hand, what could be compared to NATO or EU is the Gulf Cooperation Council. They actually do real things like common military action a few years ago when there were Iran-linked terrorist activities in Bahrain. I suggest we blurb leadership change of Gulf Cooperation Council in the furture and not this Arab League leadership change. Tradediatalk 17:59, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American actress who starred in Academy Award nominated films, Tony nominee, ex-wife of William Hurt.BilboBeggins (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Second paragraph of "career" section unsourced. "Filmography" and "theater" tables unsourced. Left guide (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American musician Elisecars727(talk)☺ 22:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Discography needs more references. Left guide (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Italian singer, actor, writer and composer. Filmography and discography need citationsTNM101 (chat) 09:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose Filmography and discography are unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Greek pop singer.~2026-19785-42 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: President of Algeria from 1994 to 1999.Mr. Lechkar (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
support has notable by precednt.Psephguru (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality Article is a stub and has several unsourced paragraphs. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
Opposewe already posted his victory in the 2026 general election. Would be redundant and unnecessary, and we generally don't do that. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
support precedence exists for election result to swearing in,Psephguru (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Close If there is a precedent, it is because the winner of the election is not the same person who ends up leading the government, or because of the exceptional circumstances surrounding their inauguration. That is not the case here. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: British Olympic athlete. Article is not bad but could do with some more citations.Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support That's a great picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
you can't support a RD nomination just because the article has a "great picture". Useless comment. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
I can and did support it for this reason and the article has now been posted. As Alsor97 doesn't understand, let's explain.
First, we should clarify the picture that I was referring to (right). This is a professional photograph and so is of excellent quality. It cannot be taken for granted as we only have this thanks to a special partnership programme with the Dutch National Archives. Note that we don't seem to have any equivalent pictures from a UK or Olympic source and so, without this Dutch initiative, we'd have nothing.
Now that picture was good but it didn't show the subject in action. Following up, I have found a good action photo from the same programme, cropped it and have added it to the article too. Before this was done, the article had zero pictures showing the subject performing.
Such pictures obviously have substantial value because a picture is worth a thousand words. And we can be fairly sure that every reader who goes to the article will at least glance at this lead picture; it will probably be the first thing they look at.
The importance of lead images to our readership is confirmed by research such as A large scale study of reader interactions with images on Wikipedia. Note that We quantify reader engagement with images and find that, on average, readers click with images 1 in every 29 pageviews on English Wikipedia, ten times more often than with references In this case, I also added a reference to the article to address the one {{citation needed}} at the time. That reference is likely to get zero engagement because it was to a newspaper published in 1966 and so requires library access through a paywall. So, the reference is almost completely useless while the image will be used by most readers.
I agree with Alsor. WP:ITNQUALITY mentions several things, but have a "great image" is not one of them. Unreferenced / poorly referenced articles can have great images but they would be not eligible for the main page. Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:ITNQUALITY states that Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. A picture portrait of the subject is expected in our biographies and is obviously a major item as it typically appears at the head of the article where it will be immediately seen by the reader. References go down at the foot of the article where just about no-one reads them. This is their relative importance. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:41, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
You may feel that way, but that is not what the guidelines demonstrate. The ITNQUALITY guidelines have a full paragraph about sourcing, which means they are of upmost importance here at ITN. In addition, a few RDs recently have been posted which do not have portraits: Michael Bambang Hartono and Mel Schilling. Natg 19 (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
The deficiences of other RDs and ITN guidelines need not detain us. The utmost quality issue for ITN is the quality of its main page section. This is currently lacking as the picture of Mette Frederiksen is now up for a fifth day and so is blatant evidence that ITN is failing to keep up main page standards. This recurring issue regularly makes ITN a laughing stock per WP:LUGO and so we should fix it. Using good free RD pictures such as this excellent picture of Rand would be an easy way to improve ITN's quality and share our quality content. Make it so. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:26, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
>article is good overall >picks the most insignificant aspect that makes it good >larps in 6 paragraphs about how it's the most important aspect of the article >ignores content inb4 "i never said it was the most important" ~2026-19557-80 (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Y'know, the IP's got a point... Chorchapu (talk|edits) 13:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you're looking at aspects of quality that other editors are ignoring, but because for RD we don't have inclusion criteria besides minimum quality requirements, I don't think it's appropriate to support an RD item without making it at least somewhat clear that you've checked whether it meets those minimum requirements. Moreover, ironically, I think currently the article has too many images, and some should probably be trimmed. A link to Commons should serve well here:) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
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:ITNQUALITY.
Support, the references look to be updated and I think the orange tag is irrelevant now Normalman101 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Women in the Olympics
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.
The ICO heaquarters in Lausanne where the announcement followed an intense week of meetings.
Nominator's comments: There are several possible articles for this and I went with one that had an update and otherwise seemed to be in reasonable shape. The BBC says that it is a "hugely significant decision".Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Administrator note Realizing this is a hot button topic for some, I would like to gently remind everyone that this discussion is Not a Forum. Please resist any temptation to make pointy comments. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support I can see this as culmination of the 2024 Summer Olympics boxing controversy and this decision is definitely going to be contentious. Though the actual impact remains to be seen. NotKringe (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
A prediction of what happens seems Crystal Ballery to me. Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Because I don't think internal guidelines for Olympics and other sports get blurbed at all right? Typically it's Olympics start and Olympics end. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Harizotoh9 is mistaken. ITN is not limited to repetitive and routine items. Previous IOC blurbs include:
The International Olympic Committee and Chinese organizers announce that all Internet restrictions have been lifted for media covering the Beijing Games.
The International Olympic Committee bans Russia from competing at the 2018 Winter Olympics, following investigation into doping at the 2014 Games.
Zimbabwe's Kirsty Coventry is elected as the first African and female president of the International Olympic Committee.
The International Olympic Committee bans Iraq's team from competing in the 2008 Summer Olympics because of interference by the government in the national-level committee.
3 of these were blurbed at least 9 years ago (some 18 years ago!) and precedent has changed since then. The Kirsty Coventry blurb is an "election" for a notable organization, which has more precedent for posting. Not opposing this specific blurb, just noting that these examples are not indicative of "internal guidelines". Natg 19 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The examples were selected because they mostly relate to bans and restrictions and so are similar. Coventry's election is relevant in being a first and female. The issue was a significant one in the election process and she has been prominent in speaking on the matter since the announcement. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose My problem with this is it's just the Olympics. That sounds weird, but think about it - the Olympics is an event that takes place every four years for (a) an incredibly small subset of sportspeople, with (b) some major sports not even being included and (c) the Olympics not being the pinnacle of the sport for many others. The actual important decisions will be made - or have already been made - by the ruling organisations of individual sports which take place for the other 3.9 years in between, and have we blurbed those that have been taken, or are we going to blurb future ones? No, we haven't, and no we aren't. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Tremondously stupid, political, ignorant ruling... that affects almost nobody and is mostly notable for riling people up. It wasn't important enough to get on the front page of ESPN.com; heck, on its Olympics subpage, it's only the 6th story. -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeeeeeeeah, thanks, I don't need a reminder. My point was that I'm opposing despite caring about the ruling. Kicking222 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
You did and still do. ‘Tremondously [sic] stupid, political, ignorant ruling’ isn’t a constructive comment. You’re an admin. Do better. Dr Fell (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose not sure why people would make a big deal about the Olympics clarifying that only women can compete in women's sports. Scuba 15:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't do that, though, and I think you know that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Based on my (very surface level) understanding, the ruling does 2 things. 1. define a woman as someone who only has X chromosomes, and 2. deny anyone who does not meet that definition the privilege of participating in women's events at the olympics. That you prefer a different definition of "woman" does not make Scuba's pronouncement wrong. Thank you for your example showing Scuba exactly why people think this is a big deal. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
??? you're a woman if you're born one... Scuba 16:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Clearly people who are transgender feel differently. Natg 19 (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
There's a reasonably likelihood that the main group this will affect is not prospective Olympic athletes who are trans (which is a very small group indeed) but existing Olympic-level athletes who do not yet know they are intersex. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Sure... but considering how intersex people only make up ~0.02% of the global population this isn't exactly a wide-scale impact. Scuba 20:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Hmmm. Is that a POINTY comment which deliberately tries to miss the core contention here to throw shades at it? Gotitbro (talk) 18:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This seems like a notable decision. The articles are good. Guz13 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This is quite a momentous decision on a topic that has been controversial (and in the news) over the past decade. I disagree that "it's only the Olympic committee" - the Olympics are the prime competition for the vast majority of sports, and this decision will reverberate beyond the 4-year cycle of the Olympics. Like the decision or not, it's a milestone event in a long-standing debate. Khuft (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The Olympics are literally not the prime competition for most sports. Athletics? Yes, certainly, and a few other sports as well. But for most sports, their own individual world championships are the highest level. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support While the number of trans athletes that have participated in the Olympics to date can be counted on one hand, this policy has the potential to exclude ciswomen that might have certain genetic markers that would be caught by this new policy. Its a major step backwards for trans and personal rights overall. Masem (t) 17:53, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The Olympics of course are not just any other competition (cf. comment by Khuft above), this is quite significant for all genders involved (cf. comment by Masem). Also to be noted that this is the culmination of a major anti-trans movement in the US, UK and other countries. Momentous as others have put it above. Gotitbro (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Alt 3 per Khuft. Not needed for the blurb itself, but the target article should include more detail on the policy the IOC published. That policy is heavily reliant on SRY gene screening, but has carve outs and exceptions for some cases (eg, CAIS). The target article is also missing any reactions to the change. Some athletes (eg, Martina Navratilova) have been very vocal on this issue. Dr Fell (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Suport. A major competition! I strongly disagree with comments based on being a minority. Only the majority should be addressed? amps (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Just some sport rule. Yes, the topic that has been controversial (and in the news) over the past decade, but it is not something which is very important for the humanity.Wi1-ch (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose While the political signalling around decisions like these is evident, the practical implications and impacts appear small. Yakikaki (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Thanks Andrew for crediting me. I'm torn on this because while I feel this decision has ramifications far beyond the tiny number of people directly affected (trans and intersex woman Olympians), including myself as a transmasculine person, I'm not sure it rises to the level of significance where it should be included in ITN. I also feel the Olympics section of the proposed target article Transgender people in sports is growing enough that it might merit its own article, as I commented today on the talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
If this does got posted to ITN, I'd !vote for Alt blurb II or III. Funcrunch (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose they've been talking about this forever. And I'm really not seeing much coverage about it (yeah, sure there's articles, among hundreds of topic covered every day - but normally for major international stories (as opposed to a car crash in Inner Vulgaria), one comes across such coverage by chance in the newspapers; and I haven't. Seems to be a who cares. Nfitz (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose IOC rules that only biological women can compete in women's events. They claim to use science as a rationale for the ban, which shouldn't surprise as there is a bevy of research literature supporting the hypothesis that trans women have physiological superiority. I don't think this is breaking news about a largely unexpected outcome that merits inclusion. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
there is a bevy of research literature supporting the hypothesis that trans women have physiological superiority - citation needed. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Indeed; and even if there was, there are many Olympic sports in which physiology is irrelevant - shooting would be an example. Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Women perform equally as men in rifle events, but men still outperform women in pistol events (see this). Anyway, one exception doesn’t make a rule, and the differences in the world records overwhelminhly confirm it, which is scientifically attributed to physiological factors. Denying this is equivalent to supporting the flat earth theory (note that both concepts are discussed in peer-reviewed journals). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
@GenevieveDEon: To begin with, see this, this and this (all published in reputable peer-reviewed journals). There are dozens of other open-access journal papers demonstrating why those physiological advantages occur based on detailed endocrinological and cardiological examinations as wll as manual muscle testings. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
@Kiril Simeonovski@GenevieveDEon Editor opinions on the merits of the IOC's new policy will only derail discussion of the value of surfacing the IOC's decision to readers. Our task isn't to decide if the IOC made a correct or incorrect decision. This is a divisive issue, and we won't reach any satisfactory consensus on the core issue itself. Dr Fell (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a fair point. I shouldn't have allowed myself to be distracted by the irrelevant comment. Back on topic: Andrew, as the edit summary for the change stated, trans women have biology too. Could we please change back to something like the proposed 'cisgender' wording? GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The IOC announcement uses the phrase "biological females" and most sources follow this language. For example, the BBC has Olympic women's sport limited to biological females as their blurb. Few sources use jargon like "cisgender" and I suppose that's because its meaning is not clear or familiar. Such alternatives should be presented as altblurbs rather than changing the wording of original blurb as that will confuse if it keeps changing. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)
Then I'm glad I didn't wait for you to correct it. In ordinary English usage, when speaking of human beings, 'female' is an adjective, and 'woman' is a noun. And I don't regard 'cisgender' as jargon; my main concern about using it here is that it obscures an important impact of this ruling - hence my second altblurb. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
The OED has female as a noun going back to the year 1350. But "cisgender" only goes back to 1997, when it appeared in a Usenet group. So, the latter is an Internet neologism while the former is established English. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be snarky, is nearly 30 years old still a neologism? Ngram viewer also, for those interested. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 12:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
It is, in fact, used in at least one of the papers Kiril is citing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Such alternatives should be presented as altblurbs rather than changing the wording of original blurb as that will confuse if it keeps changing. - On this I agree with you, on reflection, and I think it's better that we have each restored the original wording of our respective choices. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
@Dr Fell: I wrote what’s written in reliable sources and even in the article (if you think it’s a personal opinion, please remove that content from the article). Yes, it’s based on science as they claim, and there’s a large body of literature in support (for instance, see the links to papers in of my comments above), so personal opinions are the comments saying this is 'stupid' or a 'major step backwards'. That their ruling is supported in science is essential for my oppose vote. I’d have supported this if it came out of the blue with no scientific justification that would make it a clearly anti-transgender move. Now that they mention science as a rationale, the weight of the anti-transgender rhetoric substantially decreases. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
This I don't really understand... If they had based their judgment on random reasoning you would have supported, but because it's based on science (some scientific analysis, at least), you don't? How does that make it LESS notable for ITN? Khuft (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Very simple. Unexpected news is always more significant as it has implications that normally could not be anticipated. So, snowstorms in tropical regions, insane decisions by politicians to attack other countries or unfounded bans made by regulatory bodies are way more significant than other news. In this case, banning males at birth who identify as females to compete in women's events because science demonstrates that men outperform women is pretty much run off the mill. Of course, the ruling was met with criticism by human rights (specifically transgender rights) activists pointing out to some suggestive niche studies discussed in reliable sources (again, results from isolated studies don't make a rule), with some of them using methods that within the scientific community are considered pseudo-scientific (frankly, it's hard to believe that men do not outperform women in sports when the differences in the world records axiomatically support the claim and advanced studies have identified the reasons for it). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Men outperform women, but trans women aren't men. Note that many trans women undergo feminizing hormone therapy (estrogen), which make them weaker than cis men with testosterone in their bodies. Skyshiftertalk 16:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
IOC's ruling states that women must test negative for the SRY gene in order to be cleared to compete. Technically, it's possible persons assigned female at birth to test positive for this gene and vice versa, which would be a result of genetic mutations. What you're saying is covered by IOC's decision. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I think there are other implications of this ruling. If the IOC rules against trans women from participating in sport events, then what would also prevent other major sport events from baring such athletes too? Trans athletes might still be a minority, but does that mean this doesn't have an impact? It's still a morally wrong decision. --ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 23:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Dr Fell is right, just above your comment: we should not be dwelling on the morality of this decision, but rather on whether or how to post it to ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Update - I have proposed two altblurbs, one reinstating the 'cisgender' wording, and one with a different bold target, avoiding the erasure of the intersex angle. GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
And to be clear, I very intentionally did not start my altblurbs with 'In sport...', because the IOC does not make rulings in other fields. We're writing headlines, not quiz show questions. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb – I believe this is the most appropriately worded blurb. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 01:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support A major decision over a major event. ArionStar (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support either of the altburbs. Although this affects only a tiny number of athletes, it is a major event due to its political symbolism. It will have a lasting impact. Oppose the original burb as the phrase "biological females" should be strongly avoided (except as part of a direct quotation) due to both its ambiguity and its status as an anti-trans dogwhistle. It should not be used in Wikivoice. I'm sure it wasn't proposed with any ill intent but we certainly don't want that on the front page when better options are available. --DanielRigal (talk) 04:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Unlike (the much publicised) "adult human female", I haven't seen "biological female" used in anti-trans rhetoric. Though concerns beyond slur usage are very well sustained as shown by other commenters above. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I have to disagree with "biological female" being used in anti-trans rhetoric, whilst its not as bad as "adult human female" it does still skew toward being used more by transphobes compared to trans allies. ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 14:29, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
How is it ambiguous? Dr Fell (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Different people use terms like "biological sex", "biological females", "biological males" etc to mean different things, sometimes in good faith but very often in bad faith. When used in bad faith it can mean pretty much whatever the person using it wants it to mean and it can change its meaning as discussion develops when the person using it feels the need to shift their stance onto safer or newer ground.
A non-exhaustive list of things it can mean: Something about Y chromosomes, something about the SRY gene, something about genitals, something about secondary sex characteristics (either the real ones or the weird extra ones the incels made up), something about hormones, something somebody read on the internet, something to sound polite when being impolite, something to sound scientific when being unscientific. In every case it is necessary to ask what a person saying "biological sex"/"biological females"/"biological males" is actually talking about in that particular instance. If you can get a straight answer then discussion can continue on that basis. If you can't then they are either confused or trying to confuse you, so you know that you are unlikely to get anywhere.
Readers will have many different ideas of what "biological sex" means which may or may not have any alignment with what we are talking about here. Many will not be aware of the ambiguity and some may jump to an incorrect conclusion about what the blub is saying. If they click the link then they will find out what is really being said but if they don't then they may remain misled.
In this case we are talking about the presence of the SRY gene so it is far better to say something that makes it clear that this is about genetics than to leave the readers guessing. The choice between the two altblurbs comes down to whether we want to be specific and say "SRY gene" or whether we worry that the average reader might not know what that is hence it is better to say "genetic test" even though that is less specific. I'm neutral on that. "Genetic test" is not as specific as "SRY gene" but it is specific enough not to mislead anybody. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
There seem to be two threads here: ambiguity and precision. I don’t think it’s been established that ‘biological female’ is some inherently unintelligible phrase that leaves readers ‘guessing.’ It has a clear common meaning: most readers would understand it as a sex-based category, broadly directionally aligned with the IOC’s new rule. But as the IOC is determining eligibility with one-time SRY gene screening, a blurb saying as much is more exact. Given that this more precise wording is available, we should use it instead. Dr Fell (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Neutral whether to post however Strong Oppose Original Blurb being used, saying "biological females" is both an anti-trans dogwhistle and a bit of a degradation (the difference between saying female or woman as a noun). Especially when there could be alternative phrasing such as using cisgender or assigned female at birth, which doesn't have the same problems. ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 14:18, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, we should always avoid the Ferengi use of "females" when we mean women. When we mean women and girls then we should say that too. It is dehumanising in the most literal sense of that word. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose original blurb for the reasons listed above. The term is both ambiguous (trans women can be considered "biological females" too) and an anti-trans dogwhistle. Skyshiftertalk 15:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Point of clarification: Can you explain 'The term is both ambiguous (trans women can be considered "biological females" too)'? Dr Fell (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes. First and foremost, female can refer to gender identity, not only sex. And "biological" doesn't have any specific meaning. Everyone is biological. What does it mean to be biologically female? I could list examples, but that would be too off-topic. Point is: any meaning you try to extract from it, there will be cis women that doesn't meet the definition and trans women that meet it. If the intended meaning is "being assigned female at birth" then "cisgender woman" is the correct term (not forgetting that trans men exist, too). In this case there's also the issue of intersex people, as with this rule, there can be a cisgender woman that is intersex and would not be able to compete in the Olympics. ALT blurb 2 is the most technical one but is the most correct. Skyshiftertalk 16:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you. That does not change my opinion. Skyshiftertalk 19:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
It is controversial, but the official expression used. ArionStar (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
By "cis women that don't meet the definition", I presume you mean cases of androgen insensitivity syndrome. But who are the trans women that meet the definition, out of curiosity? TVShowFan122 (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Question from reader perspective: Will this only affect the Olympics or also other competitions like the Asian/SEA Games? If it also affects other competitions then Strong Support. I think "biological females" (which sources use) is less confusing to readers than "cisgender". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-18298-57 (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it will affect the Asian Games, as they're organised by a group that's overseen by the IOC. On the wording (and scope), though, I use as an example source The Guardian, which has in recent history been seen as being on the anti-trans side of this so-called debate. Their coverage does not use the 'biological females' phrasing at all, and also emphasises the impact on intersex athletes. I am still neutral on whether we should post this, but if we do, my preference is for alt2. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
The IOC announcement said it will apply for the LA28 Olympic Games onwards, and is not retroactive. But World Athletics already started a similar regime in 2025 and so its events should conform already. Andrew🐉(talk) Andrew🐉(talk) 10:49, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
"which has in recent history been seen as being on the anti-trans side of this so-called debate" [citation needed] Gotitbro (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - as I'm presuming this is in relation to the 2024 Summer Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Alt Because this is being widely covered as a significant development across the global sources, and the alt uses the most neutral language. Also: nearly all of the oppose !votes violate WP:POINT. "What a surprise, only women can compete in women's sports" or conversely "What a stupid ruling, ignorant" are NOT policy-based rationales. Both of those examples mirror oppose !votes above and are transparently using the ITN process to express individual views about gender issues. Those !votes should not be considered in the consensus decision. FlipandFlopped㋡ 15:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose original blurb The wording of the alternative blurbs is better. Personally, I think altblurb2 is the best of the options. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose target article The target article is an incoherent mess. I could support this as a section in an Olympics related article. Of all the blurbs, the original blurb is the best one. Though the term "biological female" is redundant since male and female sex are by definition immutable biological characteristics. Oppose alt-blurb since the IOC has made clear this decision is being made around sex not the made-up fluidity around "gender". --~2026-19678-45 (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose this nomination has completely lost sight of its original purpose and has turned into an unnecessary political debate. We cannot decide on the substance of the IOC’s discussion, but rather whether the decision is detrimental to Olympic sport or not. In my opinion, this is a return to the same old internal politics that affects a small percentage of Olympic sport, aside from the political uproar that the decision has sparked. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Seems notable that the IOC are now making official what many other sports governing bodies and country's courts have been ruling. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
That they are doing what everyone else are doing User:The C of E, implies to me that it's not notable or significant. Nfitz (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Most others have been national issues (US executive order, RFU, UK Supreme Court etc). This is the high profile, first time where a major World multi-sports body has ruled in with a definitive "no" on this matter. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose(Redacted) Not important enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 13:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Nor can we censor opinions that we don't agree with. His/her comment may be off the mark, but Wikipedia should be a space that embraces a diversity of viewpoints. Freedom of expression is much broader. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia does embrace a diversity of viewpoints, but saying that trans women aren't women should not be one of them. Calling them "men" is blatant bigotry, which is prohibited. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Whether or not transgender women are women is a matter of scientific and anthropological-social debate; it is not a dogma. Therefore, taking one side or the other does not constitute hate speech. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Suggested altblurb - In sports, the International Olympic Committee rules participation in women's events will remain open to women, validated by genetic testing. CoatCheck (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
@CoatCheck: That wording is very obviously biased against the trans community. The currently proposed blurb ideas are all much better. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak Support - altblurb 2 or 3. This is a significant policy change by a major international organization. While its role as a precedent for other sports bodies is speculative (WP:CRYSTAL), their ruling is notable enough on its own to warrant inclusion. byteflushTalk 01:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support. Widely-covered development in a hot-button issue in world athletics, and a policy change decided on by the governing body of arguably the foremost name in global athletics. Qualifying with "weak" support because, as some have pointed out, the number of athletes impacted by this is small, though I wouldn't call this trivial enough to oppose. Preference to include sex verification in sports as the target article seeing as it would make the most sense to be the target, but that article does not seem to be updated to include this information. I do not believe the target article is appropriate, even if the linked section is - I think it would make sense if it were modified to be included in the aforementioned article instead. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support I believe the linked articles are all good quality and though I accept the significance is debatable, I consider the IOC an influential enough body for the new limitation on all women's sports to be significant. The Olympics (both Summer and Winter) are always ITN and are arguably the world's most famous recurring sporting events, and the thorny issue of trans women in women's sports is a perennial news topic around the world. As per Andrew's comment above, there are plenty of blurbs about the IOC's decisionmaking so there is certainly precedent for a blurb in this instance. Oppius Brutus 07:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
For clarity, this absolutely is not a new limitation on all women's sports. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose– I would've liked to see this as an opportunity to feature Sex-determining region Y protein, but that article only has a one-sentence update so isn't eligible. The Transgender people in sports article has a suitable, but not impressive, two-paragraph update. For a subject like this I think it's probably important to show Wikipedia's best side, and I am not convinced this is quite it yet. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:11, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose More or less per Maplestrip. Our target needs to be clear about the specific change happening here and the reaction/implications of it. A major element of anti-trans rights advocacy is that it's actually quite difficult to define what a "woman" is in absolute terms, but SRY testing is an exceptionally poor way to do it. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:13, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb 2 or 3 as they are the most precise. On notability, arguably significant as a decision by a major organization in a controversial topic. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now on the basis that the target article(s) is not about the primary subject (in this case, the vote/decision itself) of the blurb. I think primary subjects of ITN blurbs should have, by minimum, a dedicated article about itself (event, person etc.), rather than using a secondary article as it indicates a level of significance/notability typically required for blurbing. Comment I feel the current discourse focuses on irrelevant subjects, due to the (rather) controversial nature of the decision itself, rather than what should be focused on (article quality etc.). ~2026-19793-12 (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I think a section can be sufficient, but I agree that a more thorough description/update of the subject would be necessary. I think logically the target article for this story should be this, but that article clearly doesn't have a suitable update. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
A 25-year-old Spanish woman from Barcelona, Catalonia, undergoes euthanasia after her request was approved by authorities and upheld through multiple legal challenges despite opposition from her family. (CNN)
South Africa says it is no longer invited to the upcoming G7 summit in Haute-Savoie, France, after an initial invitation, with differing statements from its officials on the reasons for the decision. (AFP via Arab News)
Australia announces a six-month ban on short-term visa applications from Iranian passport holders for tourism and work, citing concerns that some visitors may not depart Australia once their visas expire due to the Iran war. The new policy includes limited exemptions. (AFP via The Times of Israel)
The International Olympic Committee announces that participation in women's events will be limited to athletes classified as female based on biological criteria, with eligibility determined through a one-time genetic test starting from the 2028 Olympic Games. The policy replaces previous rules that allowed individual sports federations to set their own criteria. (AFP via ABS-CBN News)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American character actor best known for portraying strict authority figures, most notably Vice Principal Gerald Strickland in the Back to the Future trilogy and Commander Tom "Stinger" Jardian in Top Gun.ItsShandog (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Not Quite Ready Much improved from when I looked at the page last night, but there are still a number of uncited credits in the various tables.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs) 16:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Only one uncited credit left. Article is adequate for posting. Marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. @Ad Orientem: any sourcing issues appear to have been fixed. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Influential German intellectual (one of three at the time, says FAZ) who worked innovatively as film director, author of short stories and social-critical volumes, also as academic and television production company founder. The article is the work of many.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Unusually well-developed article. Yakikaki (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Pretty close, but bibliography still has some missing references. I added a couple as well. SpencerT•C 20:46, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
please check again, and thank you for adding --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 20:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American musician who was guitarist for the punk rock band The Dictators and the heavy metal band Manowar.thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work lacking citations and formatting is not ideal. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: Not ITN/R because the Faroe Islands is an autonomous/dependent territory, meaning the election has to be judged by merit.CastleFort1 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support recurring The Faroes have a high degree of autonomy and independence. Article is in good shape. Faroe Islands is yellow tagged, but that shouldn't be a barrier to this nom. –DMartin (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Merge with Danish election blurb, I was thinking about nominating this. I support adding this since I generally support adding elections from any "costituent country" type jurisdiction, i.e., any area where Wikipedia describes people from there as being from that place instead of the larger state (Faroese, Scottish, Manx, Aruban, Jerseyman, etc.). I think that indicates a certain level of difference in self and or external perception that merits greater attention, especially considering that many of these places are larger, receive more coverage, and frankly are of arguably of greater importance than a lot of the ITNR elections that we do post (like small pacific islands). That being said, from what I've read, this seems to be part of the larger trend of the Danish social democrats underperforming, so it would probably be best to merge it with the preexisting Danish election blurb. The article could deal with more prose regarding the aftermath, but is otherwise of similar quality to the 2025 Greenlandic general election, which btw we did post (granted in large part due to the Greenland crisis, but still). — Knightoftheswords 13:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
That being said, given the fact that the current blurb is already pretty long, I would get behind posting it as a standalone party if need be. — Knightoftheswords 13:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Thank god it is not ITNR. Why we need to subject our readers to this? How many of them woke up and wondered who won the Faroe Islands election? Tradediatalk 15:01, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Prolly around the same amount as those who wondered who won the recent Liechtenstein, Monaco, Narau, and Tuvalu, all of whom have a smaller population than the Faroes (well, I guess everyone who isn't tax evading). — Knightoftheswords 15:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose covered by the danish election. Scuba 15:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
This election was separate from the Danish general. — Knightoftheswords 15:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs clarification since I'm not an expert on the Faroe Islands. It's listed as an "'autonomous territory' of the Kingdom of Denmark. So does that mean it's not an independent state? If it's just a part of Denmark, then no. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a realm encompassing three countries, only one of them, Denmark, is sovereign. That being said, Greenland and the Faroes are more independent than say, Scotland, and we posted the Greenlandic elections last year. — Knightoftheswords 15:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Many, many, subnational government have more power than Scotland. At least 51 USA ones. Scotland even has to ask the English for permission to have a referendum! The Faroe's still have MPs who vote in the Danish parliament. Unlike Puerto Rico, Gibraltar, or the Falklands. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support the Faroe Islands are fully self-governing and arguably have the highest level of autonomy possible. We posted the Greeland, Taiwan and Somaliland elections, and arguably these islands are de facto lot more independent than many other actually fully sovereign states even in Europe (Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino). To oppose this is merely drawing an arbitrary line between countries we deem more important than others. Many Carribean and Pacific Islander nations are of similar size and stature politically, we posted the Barbados elections recently for example. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
from the introduction of the country article: Faroe Islands have extensive autonomy and control most areas apart from military defence, policing, justice and currency, with partial control over foreign affairs. Because the Faroe Islands are not part of the same customs area as Denmark, they have an independent trade policy and can establish their own trade agreements with other states. The islands have an extensive bilateral free trade agreement with Iceland, known as the Hoyvík Agreement. In certain sports, the Faroe Islands field their own national teams.Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The most possible? And yet they don't even have full control over policing! That's something most sub-national governments - and even some tertiary or quaternary governments have control of! I'm not sure they even have as much autonomy as the 26 counties in Switzerland! Or that it's particularly dissimilar to, say, Quebec or Puerto Rico. None of which we'd ever post. Nfitz (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - sub national election; we must have many of those nearly every day. If it was a referendum on independence, maybe. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
They're not "sub-national" because they are a nation in their own right. The only elements they don't fully control are military defence, policing, justice and currency. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
But the Faroe Islands are simply not a nation. They are a part of the Danish Realm. And also, "military defence, policing, justice and currency" are awfully large parts of sovereignty... Chorchapu (talk|edits) 22:45, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
They are a nation, the Faroese have their own language culture etc. Also many sovereign states don't control those three elements, such as the aforementioned San Marino, Andorra, Liechtenstein. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
They are not a separate nation. As our article states, they are a rigsdel ('autonomous territory') of the Kingdom of Denmark - which means they are not a sovereign nation. Their status is similar to Greenland. Having their own language / culture etc makes them a people group but not a sovereign nation. If the Faroe Islands declare independence from Denmark, that would make them a sovereign nation. Natg 19 (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Wales and Northern Ireland are also nations. Quebec identifies as a nation. There's a thousand First Nations in North America. A nation is not an independent state. Possibly if it's 100% self-governing, contested like Taiwan - but that's not the case here. Nfitz (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the autonomy of the Faroe Islands seems to me to be roughly the same as the Isle of Man and Channel Islands, and those elections would go unheard even in England. And don't @ me with Andorra and Monaco being irrelevant independent countries or relying on a larger nation for defence, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSUnknown Temptation (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I think media reporting frequency in England is a poor measure given the news routinely barely covers even Northern Ireland and further to that the news in general is heavily skewed towards London, a complaint often heard in even in other parts of England, never mind in the crown dependencies. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Sovereignty is a pretty clear dividing line for ITN/R, and the coverage/importance of these elections doesn't meet our standards to blurb otherwise. TheKip(contribs) 07:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, not a sovereign country and I'm not seeing any extraordinary circumstances that would elevate this to the significance justifying a blurb. The analogy to the Isle of Man is a good one - they're both ancient nations with similar populations and levels of self-government, but no sovereignty. Modest Geniustalk 15:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I've previously supported subnational elections of autonomous regions because of a significant political shake-ups (SF winning in NI) but this is a simple government change. I'd support merging with the larger Danish election blurb though. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Supreme Court of Finland convicts Päivi Räsänen and Juhana Pohjola of crimes against humanity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: This has been noted as a "landmark ruling" by both international news outlets and even opponents of the ruling (, , ) with a particular focus on the fact that both Päivi Räsänen and Juhana Pohjola were convicted under the crimes against humanity section of the Criminal Code of Finland (). A significant precedent with massive implications in all related matters in liberal democracies moving forward into the future, especially considering that Finland is consistently ranked at or near the top of various indices of freedom and democracy, and is broadly considered to be a model liberal democracy.Justthefacts (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb however needs own article, and oppose on quality - The case itself is most certainly notable, however the blurb should link to the article (if there is one). This article would also need to be of sufficient depth for ITN. The part of the biographies about the conviction is also nowhere near sufficient quality. ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 04:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
@Elizaofchaos: "[...] needs own article [...] the blurb should link to the article (if there is one). This article would also need to be of sufficient depth for ITN." There is no separate article about the case itself and writing one would be difficult as all in-depth coverage of the case as well as court documents are available only in the Finnish language. --Justthefacts (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Such a "landmark decision" that their convictions have a single sentence on their respective articles. I also find the blurb to be somewhat inappropriate because "crimes against humanity" means something entirely different to the rest of the developed world. We should add a little more context and develop the articles if we want to seriously include this. So on all major fronts, quality and context, I don't believe this deserves to be on the main page. MountainJew6150 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The blurb is absolutely sensational, the case involving a Tweet "calling homosexuality a developmental disorder". Good for Finland, but the significance simply does not exist here. BLP is also a major consideration to not feature any of this on the main page. Gotitbro (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose interesting case but the result was only that the politician had to pay a small fine. No major significance here (like jail time etc). Natg 19 (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose When I google "Finland", I find a variety of stories in which this doesn't stand out. For example, Finland moves to allow hosting of nuclear weapons in dangerous shift. The issue in question seems to have had a mixed result with an acquittal for the tweet and a 3-2 close decision about a 20-year-old pamphlet. This doesn't seem to be the "gravest of crimes against humanity". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on both quality and notability. Despite the grandiose terminology used, it looks like the actual offence is hate speech. Räsänen's article has some details but proceeds very rapidly from the original acquittal to the current situation. Pohjola's article lacks any kind of contextualising information at all - nothing about the niche nature of the church to which he belongs, nothing about what he did to lead to the trial. It's barely more than a stub. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
To add: It's also not clear which link is intended to be bold in the blurb, and I concur with Natg19 that 'politician pays small fine' is not exactly world-shaking news. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Mountain out of a molehill, and "crimes against humanity" will just confuse people. Other headlines say "Finland's Supreme Court Fines MP..." which is more apt and shows the true scale of this event. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose especially at current wording. Crimes against humanity is a technical term in international law reserved for extremely serious crimes. Current wording is sensationalism at best. –DMartin (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - I find it significant and interesting that half of the sources provided in the nomination, including all of the ones which use the wording in the blurb, are highly partisan ones, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, who funded the defence in the case. This strongly implies that the proposed blurb contravenes WP:NPOV. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for all the reasons. No suitable target article. Coverage does not seem especially broad or deep, even among Finnish sources. Litigant articles have improved but not nearly enough. As others have noted, the use of ‘crimes against humanity’ is confusing to the reader and also mistaken with respect to the actual judgement. Expected appeal to the ECHR has already been announced. Speech can be compelled or proscribed, but… e pur si muove. Dr Fell (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
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) RD/Blurb: Noelia Castillo euthanasia case
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Euthanasia announced on this dateMarioJump83 (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I have removed a salacious detail that was cited to the German gutter tabloid Bild, see WP:BILD. While I'm not a snob who would demand that all sources be from Spain, there seems to be quite a lot of telephone game about this case and the poor young woman's life story. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, article is of decent quality. Blurb, landmark ruling on euthanasia in Spain, arguably on par with same-sex marriage legalization in its importance. Generating sustained coverage across Europe and even in the New World. Death is the main story (see WP:ITNRDBLURB, If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb). Even though the claim that this is a landmark case is bogus (she officially filed under poor health), I do think this should be posted for the reasons stated. — Knightoftheswords 14:16, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, Oppose blurb: There has been a lot of inaccurate reporting about this case, which I predict will become a tsunami once it's linked from the main page. One is that this was in some way an expansion of euthanasia law. This is inaccurate. The euthanasia was allowed for chronic physical pain, and is not related to her mental health issues, apart from those led to her jump which gave her physical pain. The 20-month legal battle is because any court decision in Spain can be appealed; the father's appeal fell at every hurdle up to the European Court of Human Rights. The legalisation of euthanasia is akin to legalisation of same-sex marriage, one euthanasia case five years later isn't. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD Long enough and sourced. Grimes2 15:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Removed RD on procedural grounds The target article is not a BLP, and Castillo's notability is only derived from her death. RD is not a backdoor to squeeze through nominations that don't meet significance requirements for a blurb. It's one thing to post "one member of a musical group" dying; it is entirely different when the target article is about the death itself. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Murder of Brianna Ghey posted as recent death for Ghey in February 2023. Ghey too only noted for dying. Ian Huntley posted recently, redirect to Soham murders. Castillo legal case reported in Spain for last two years, so not strictly only notable post-mortem. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
As long as there is some biographical information not associated with the event they are part of. I'm not seeing that for Castillo here. Masem (t) 23:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree to disagree that a legal case that has been covered in Spanish for 20 months and even in English for 12 months is a narrow event. Not to compare two people who should definitely have lived longer, but Brianna Ghey was posted in February 2023 based on the societal response, which is obvious in this case as well, and I can't help but notice the first name supporting RD for Ghey. Unknown Temptation (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
The talk page discussion confirmed that such cases should be discussed ad hoc and not be given the presumption of significance of an RD. Literally any blurb nomination could be turned into an RD if a single person died. Imagine the school shootings alone. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Separately, that discussion is still open, and I would appreciate more people weighing in. I believe that because an RDBLURB is considered a elevation of of RD for super special people, people think of RD as blurb-lite. It was not intended for that purpose, and we are changing it without much discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
I've removed this being marked as "ready". Date and place of death are both unreferenced. Schwede66 00:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD article looks good enough. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose procedurally The article is not a bio so therefore it cannot be an RD, based upon precedence of Succulent Chinese meal. As for the topic as a blurb, its a localised matter, not really having an impact worldwide. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD Good article quality. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD The name is mentioned in the title and the article includes enough biographical information. I don't think readers will be confused. If it really breaks/bends the rules a little bit, Wikipedia can handle it (WP:IAR). It should not be a blurb, because it doesn't meet the significance threshold. Previous, similar, cases before the ECHR had the same result, namely that euthanasia is an individual decision if the person has a sound mind. Rolluik (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted as RD, which WP:ITNRDS allows and many editors here acknowledge. Schwede66 09:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Ko Wen-je sentenced for corruption
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major political news in Taiwan.Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 06:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as currently written. It's not clear from the blurb who he is or what he was sentenced for. I obviously don't know Taiwanese law, but 'in the first instance' doesn't seem to convey anything useful here; and a blurb should be in the present tense. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@GenevieveDEon: Well, this case may be controversial in Taiwan's politics because I show my neutral attitude towards that (although I've written at Ko_Wen-je#Adjudication to show how he was sentenced).--Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 08:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I've checked the article - the summary there of what he was sentenced for includes 'etc'. But you can't 'show a neutral attitude' by not specifying - including in the headline - what the conviction and sentencing were for. Why is this person important, and what has actually happened? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@GenevieveDEon: In Taiwan, Ko Wen-je was the mayor of Taipei City, then became the chairman of Taiwan People's Party. At the end of 2023, Ko Wen-je decided to take the bid for 16th presidential election. However, in 2024, he was accused for corruption of Core Pacific City, etc. (see also zh:京華城案, zh:柯文哲政治獻金案) Thus, for this judgment, I think it could affect Taiwan's nine-in-one election (九合一選舉) in November 2026 and presidential election in January 2028. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 08:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, you're saying he was 'accused for... etc'. Fine here in talk, to be clear, but the article should be specific. And the headline should be something like "Former mayor of Taipei and presidential candidate Ko Wen-je is sentenced to 17 years in prison for corruption" (assuming that I've understood correctly and that's what's happened). But whether it affects a future election should probably not affect our headline or our decision on whether to post, per WP:CRYSTAL. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
@GenevieveDEon: At present, the blurb shows the result of first instance (given the top position). "Whether it affects a future election should probably not affect our headline or our decision on whether to post" can be provided by Taiwan's Business Today, The Liberty Times, Chinatimes, etc.--Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 09:29, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Please go ahead and read WP:CRYSTAL, we do not determine significance from speculative future predictions. It is to be determined from event consequences as they now exist. Gotitbro (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Well, I didn't add "future things" in the blurb because it is obviously imappropriate to be shown. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 14:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The "former" chairman of a third wheel party in the DPP-Kuomintang Taiwanese system. Barely significant at all. Gotitbro (talk) 13:27, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on significance. Also, the sentencing update on his page is one line and doesn't read well. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not important enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 17:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. He did not hold any important international position. The position he held was that of president of a political party (which can have national relevance). A.WagnerC✍ (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on significance Setarip (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on significance. That this is a story limited to domestic Taiwanese politics isn't (and shouldn't be) disqualifying. However, the TPP is an also-ran in Taiwanese politics, without a significant number of seats in parliament and having neither been in government or the official opposition. Dr Fell (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
Iran says it has received intelligence that the U.S. and an "unnamed regional country" are planning to invade and capture its Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf as thousands of U.S. Marines are due to arrive in the region in the coming days. (The Telegraph)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Weak oppose Last section in the Career section is uncomfortably shakily cited to AllMusic. The article's also on the short side, but otherwise is in decent shape. Departure– (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Replaced that ref. Agree its pretty meh, but probably good enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, I feel the article meets the minimum length to not be a stub. Other than that, I did not see any glaring issues from a quick readthrough. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Social media addiction case (K.G.M. v. Meta et al.)
Nominator's comments: This is the first of a wave of lawsuits in which the social media giants are being compared with tobacco companies. So far, Wikipedia has not been found addictive. I can give this up any time ...Andrew🐉(talk) 22:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Trivial, not suitable for ITN. TwistedAxe[contact] 22:58, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
The BBC, NYT and other mainstream sources describe this as a "landmark" case. Where's the reliable source saying that it is trivial? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality: not nearly long enough, unclear consequences. Departure– (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on Notability, Strong oppose on quality (for now) - Landmark case, however the article does not reflect this at all at this moment and needs to be massively expanded
ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 00:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose on quality Article is currently a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - 2 internet giants being losing a lawsuit is notable. JaxsonR (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on significance So far the outcome of the lawsuit is potential fees for social media companies, which happen all the time. For comparison these companies have been fined billions of dollars for violating the GDPR and none of those cases have been blurbed. FallingGravity 05:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Update The article is coming along nicely as other editors have joined in to expand it. It is no longer a stub and is well above the main page minimums specified for ITN and DYK. Checking a newstand just now, I saw that it was on the front page of the The Times which is Britain's newspaper of record and so it's international front page news. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:44, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on the "bellweather" claim. It is important but it doesn't establish any far ranging case law beyond the state of California, at best. Yes, other pending cases will cite it, but also as a jury result in a civil trial, its less likely to be a key case law basis. Also compared to the New Mexico case earlier in the week, where Meta was found to be violating child safety laws and fined $375m, the $3m here is pennies. (but even then, I would not call the new mexico a bellweather case due to being decided by jury at the state level) Masem (t) 13:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Just to add where I would expect such a case to become landmark is evidenced by the Cox Communication v Sony Music SCOTUS case. That started similarly as a jury trial on civil charges with a $1 billion fine imposed. It then made it to federal appeal court that dismissed some of the charges but still left Vox set for more fines by a second jury. SCOTUS ruled on the actual merits and established the case law around when an ISP would be contributory aiding in copyright infringe. Now, that's not saying the Cox case is landmark but that's how landmark case law can come about, and we are pretty much assured there will be appeals in this. If it ends up at SCOTUS and they find that social media companies are liable for addiction, that would be the point to post for purposes of ITN. An article on the case is fine and for now it might meet DYK. Masem (t) 15:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
The bellwether status of this is not a claim; it's a fact. See bellwether trial for details of the process. This status was determined by a Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding (JCCP No. 5255) which covers hundreds of such cases. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Which makes this even less significant to post until it has national level case law implications. And the damages are nowhere close compared to net value of Meta or YouTube to affect their business. Contrast that to the billions on the Sackler/Purdue opioid lawsuit settlement. Masem (t) 18:49, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Last I read our articles about this, internet/social media addiction is not a recognized medical diagnosis. So it can be problematic to use that framing in our blurb. And Google litigation and lawsuits involving Meta Platforms tells me that this is just one of many suits against these tech giants and unlikely to affect their operations at all. Gotitbro (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: At least one of the parties is planning an appeal, so I don't think this is definitively settled yet. SpencerT•C 16:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
The Iran and other wars are not settled yet but we still post them. The point here is that it is in the news. I passed another news stand here in the UK and checked the front pages more closely. The story is on the front pages of all the quality press -- the Times, the Telegraph, the Guardian and the FT. It is also getting prominent coverage in other countries. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:11, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Just being "in the news" does not make it postable. I am neutral on this, but whether it is "significant" matters. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
It might be on the front page of every UK newspaper (or any other country for that matter) does not make it inherently notable or significant. Gotitbro (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Let's see what one of these actual reliable sources says, shall we. The Times is a journal of record with a reasonably good reputation. Its front page story starts
Meta and YouTube have been found liable in a landmark court verdict for the harm caused to a woman who became addicted to their platforms. The ruling in Los Angeles ― after a six-week trial in which Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Meta, gave evidence ― is expected to open the floodgates to further lawsuits from families of youngsters harmed by an addiction to social media. John Banzhaf, professor of public interest law at George Washington University, said he believed that Meta faced an existential threat from thousands of similar cases...
So, this report cites a expert who reckons this outcome is existential for a trillion-dollar company. Now John Banzhaf is a notable and experienced academic lawyer but the nay-sayers pontificating here do not seem to have any such credentials, right? Per WP:5P2, Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia. and so we should go by this expert source. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:30, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL and all that. And Citizendium is the place one might want to move to if the trust in the ability of other editor's to assess to notability and significance is to be done away with. Gotitbro (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on Notability, Oppose on Quality Is this in the news and notable? Yes. Is it of reader interest? Yes. Is there a relevant high-quality article? Not yet. A case like this will be appealed, and it may be years before long-term impact is clear and a new legal framework for tech firm liability is established. This judgement, though, is a significant milestone already in that process. Dr Fell (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
ITN does not work on speculation of impact. Masem (t) 04:10, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:ITN does not use the word "impact" and many blurbed items do not have a big impact. For example, consider the Abel prize which we are blurbing. The mathematical work is not new; it was done about 40 years ago when it was recognised by the Fields medal, which is only given to young people. The main impact is that the guy gets a prize of 7.5M NOK which is less than 1M USD. And he gets to give a speech but hasn't done that yet as the ceremony is not until May. And he gets some status or glory which is psychological.
So, significance <> impact. This result is significant as it's a bellwether case explicitly chosen to serve as a precedent.
Support on notability, oppose on quality per Dr Fell. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability and quality There isn't much to say about this case, so it should be posted as it. Guz13 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose ITN is for featuring quality content. If there isn't anything to say, then that's a reason not to post it. I'm always open to bending on significance or quality if the other is overwhelming, but neither is here. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on all grounds. Even if we take out the question of impact (beyond the trivial monetary payouts) and appeals, the significance of this case is not substantiated in the article. The lede refers to the case as bellwether, yet it is not mentioned nor otherwise substantiated in the body. Unless that changes, I don't see this warranting posting. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
An excellent point. Can no one refute this? Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Although note that this is partly because of the paltry participation in expanding this article. In fact, not one proper sentence has been added since this nomination. It's only been "de-stubbed" by adding sections, and Andrew adding some items to the See Also. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 22:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
There is not the slightest doubt that this is formally considered a bellwether case. The lead/body issue was just a glitch in the expansion of the article to give it a separate lead. I had some plans for this but they were interrupted. I have now got back to it and have expanded the background to address the point. There's a lot more I could add but I'm done for today. Feel free to work on such issues yourself. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
To add support to this: Almost all coverage I've read has described the case as either bellwether or landmark. RS are confident that this is a significant case. Dr Fell (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Great - it should be substantiated in the article then. DarkSide830 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
I'd think to be bellwether it would need to be not at such a low level court - it's quaternary! There's still two levels of court at the State level to appeal, then the feds. It's not like anyone is paying anything this decade. Nfitz (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Selection of bellwether cases happens at this level. See a source such as Stanford Law School to understand the concept.
For clarity, note that the article was updated to address this point so I'm not sure why the penny hasn't dropped. I might go on to expand the article further but it seems to be a waste of time when others don't read or understand what's already there.
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:ITNQUALITY.
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:ITNQUALITY.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: the resolution suggests apologies and paying into a reparation fund, but how bind that is is unclear, though this gives legal weight in other courts. I don't know if best target article and needs updating anyway for this and other cleanup.Masem (t) 19:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Unclear if this will have any consequences at all, as the US opposed and major European countries abstained. I think the target article (if posted) should be an article related to the historical African slave trade, as that is what this resolution targets, not modern slavery. Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance/notability, because obv, but Slavery in Africa is predominantly on slavery within Africa, while this targeted intercontinental slave trades and presumably plantation slavery. Slavery would be a better target article imo, or Atlantic slave tradeKowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Slavery has been illegal in all countries since Mauritania last abolished it in 1981, so it’s very unclear how does this superlative characterisation by the UN change the big picture. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I see a general-assembly vote proposed by Ghana opposed by the US and Israel with no binding power other than a formal recognition and an "urge" for societal reparations. It appears the reparations are the main consequence of this but they haven't materialized, though the article says the movement to institute reparations is gaining momentum. This proclamation doesn't seem to be that important in of itself. Departure– (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The target article hasn't been updated, is too rambling and is orange-tagged. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is nothing more than the UN officially saying "yes we know slavery is very bad" with no binding power whatsoever, so I doubt this is significant. NotKringe (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on terms of significance per above, as well as the target article not being the primary subject (the vote or resolution itself) of the blurb. ~2026-18791-24 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Just another international law that will be not be properly enforced.. typical UN. JaxsonR (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not a law; it's a declaration. Declarations are aspirational, not enforceable. They are important statements of principles and should be used to guide future lawmaking, but are not themselves laws. Think of them as declaration is to Wikipedia essays as international law is to Wikipeida policies. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per all above. UNGA resolutions are a kind of participation trophy in international relations. I do think the nomination has good intent, though. The target article is modern slavery. Putting the ITN spotlight on that issue is a textbook example how ITN could/should function. And certainly provides more value to readers than the Colombian air crash or Africa Cup final. Dr Fell (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
But this target article of "modern slavery" is incorrect though. The resolution says nothing about this and addresses the historical Atlantic slave trade. Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
I know; that's why I voted oppose despite what I perceived as good intent. Dr Fell (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose UNGA doesn't matter. Guz13 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Broadcasting personality. Death announced on this dateTNM101 (chat) 05:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as the article is of sufficient length. I did not spot any glaring issues from a quick readthrough.CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Can the intro be beefed up a bit, please? There is currently just a single sentence. {{Lead too short}} applies? --PFHLai (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Sora closes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Big economic news receiving substantial, sustained coverage from multiple WP:RSes. Will bring a nice, diverse touch to ITN and help it move away from being a sort of disasterpedia. By the way, contrary to what some editors say, we do post economic news (such as multiple ones from the 2023 banking crisis), and it's not WP:PROMO to do so (never mind the fact that's a moot point since this is about an app shutdown that doesn't make its parent company look good).— Knightoftheswords 02:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on notability - An app shutting down (albeit one of the first major AI video apps to do so) in my opinion does not constitute notability for ITN, also apply a kind of WP:ITNTRUMP in that not everything an AI company does needs to be on ITN
ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 02:25, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate the spirit of this nom. I would argue that Sora is significant enough that it's end does meet a prima facie case for significance. But we would need to see a more substantive update to the target that demonstrates this. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This looks more like a tool to generate images, rather than a ChatBot. There's no indication that OpenAI wouldn't still provide AI services publicly. Google eliminating Map History isn't notable. Google closing it's doors would be noteworthy. Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose / wait on its face, the product's discontinuation date has not been announced and is not effective immediately. It's unclear the scope the closure of a single product of a company could cause world-shaking consequences, but Sora, the key crusader in the end of too many good intentioned people's common sense, would be the app to do that. I wonder where all that money goes now. Departure– (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: Not worth it to post on ITN per ElizaofChaos. ROY is WARTalk! 05:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - The closure of an app is essentially trivia. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose We have rejected much more influential software products from Microsoft and the like, this is barely significant. If this was ChatGPT or OpenAI itself, we can talk. Gotitbro (talk) 07:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
Nominator's comments: Think this would be a good and diversified story to post on ITN; decent quality article (), contains substantial updates, receiving a decent amount of coverage, and is something other than a disaster (if people are that opposed to this turning into disaster-pedia, then they should support adding more varied stories of interest instead of just axing disaster noms and making ITN's pool of stories even more limited).— Knightoftheswords 02:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Seems like a great addition to ITN as an encyclopedic entry, I definitely favour ITN being more scientific and encyclopedic versus journalistic (like the King Charles III England Coast Path nomination). The article does need a little bit of work in changing some of the phrasing to reflect that it is cancelled but otherwise looks good. ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 02:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - The cancellation of this space station is an extremely significant part that was discarded off NASA's Artemis program as a whole. It deserved to be mentioned at the ITN KyloRen2017 (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - plans change. Unless there is some level of finality (no more plan changes, they will do this unless the sky falls down) I don't see why this would be worth featuring. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Construction hadn't started, so this is essentially just changing some line items in future US government budgets. GenevieveDEon (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
The first components of the Lunar Gateway, both the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE), and the Habitation and Logistics Outpost (HALO) were actually complete as of last year, April 2025. It was about to be prepared to be attached to its Falcon Heavy rocket this year to meet its scheduled launch date around November 2027 before NASA restructured its plans for Artemis a few days ago KyloRen2017 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Meh. Government agency plans which never even entered any semblance of implementation/production abandoned. Dime a dozen. Gotitbro (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN, and this event is notable and in the news. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support While most cancelations of plans are not notable, this one is widely covered in reliable global sources and involves the redirection of significant resources. Rolluik (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Plans rather than anything actually happening. Plans may change. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment about blurb wording. I have no opinion on the worthiness of this, but if posted, remove the "In space exploration" bit. For god's sake, it's such an awfully awkward way to introduce a sentence. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 16:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree, I quite like ITN blurbs having "In ___" as a standardized opening. — Knightoftheswords 19:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Why? Do you think someone can't read something about NASA and a moon base and not figure out that it has to do with space exploration? I don't know who added "in astronomy" as an altblurb, but it's even worse. It's a Wikipedia-specific tic, and it's utterly dreadful. Just because it's habit doesn't mean we have to keep perpetuating the bad habit. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 21:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
In this case, it's more concise to just say NASA cancelled the project, since we expect the general reader to be able to infer that a blurb about NASA will be related to space exploration. In other cases, having an "In ___" is more suitable, as it provides contextual information that we don't expect the general reader to have. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, as part of the Gateway had already been built. Also agree with the wording suggestion from Deacon Vorbis. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose this is a type of decision that can be reversed in a future administration. Its why for space exploration we usually post on launches and arrivals, and not earlier. Masem (t) 18:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Added Altblurb2 - I think that this is a better way of putting it, as per Deacon VorbisElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 01:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. We would have posted this if it launched, but we shouldn't be posting things that won't happen. Officially this is only 'paused' not cancelled, though I suspect it's functionally dead. Regardless, cancellation of a spacecraft isn't significant enough to justify posting in ITN. Modest Geniustalk 16:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It's all hypothetical. Plans can always change. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:24, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
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: Prime Minister Frederiksne's gambit to capitalize on the Greenland crisis hasn't seemed to bear fruit as her party sees a reduced pluarlity in the legislature. Article needs more prose.— Knightoftheswords 01:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support once article gets a bit expanded. Right now the article mainly consists of tables and graphs. TwistedAxe[contact] 01:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Just an quick observation but is there a better picture of Frederiksen to use? Currently this one gives off a bit of a comedic impression at first, as if she's sad about doing poorly in the election or something. Doesn't help that she's glancing off to the left, looking at the blurbs. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 02:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose image change proposal, generally weary of such things per concerns about neutrality and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (i.e, in the past, image changes have been proposed for guys on ITN wearing Nike hats or for people some editors don't like smiling). The image is used in the article so I think it should be good enough for ITN. That being said, if this does go through, there's this image from February 2025 (hot damn, if her expression in the above image is what annoys you, than this woman has essentially no good photos of her from the past year from what I've seen on Commons). — Knightoftheswords 05:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Poor lady, this one's hardly much better. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 12:07, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Added altblurb3. It needs to focus more on the fact that no bloc has a majority, rather than what party is the largest. I would also omit the term "snap" election just because it's unclear when to use that term. This is a difficult election to have a good blurb for though. Gust Justice (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb3 Lets not try to be too clever and focus on the current situation. Rolluik (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb3 as per Rolluik. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb 3 The third altblurb is more accurate to the results. Quality-wise, the article appears to be in fair shape for posting on ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb 3 Way clearer with far less jargon than the others. Article looks good enough from a quick readthrough. ~2026-18791-24 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support alt2 or alt3. I wish there was some prose in the results section, not just a table. Still, the aftermath section has referenced prose on the reaction, and the article otherwise seems in decent shape. Modest Geniustalk 18:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support alt blurb3 - Covered by ITN/R and the article is in good enough shape to be posted ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 02:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support alt3 - This has been read to post for a bit. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Russian missile and drone strikes across Ukraine kill at least three people, including two in Poltava and one in Zaporizhzhia, and injures several others. The attacks also damage residential buildings and infrastructure in the areas. (AFP via BSS)
The trailer for the upcoming superhero film Spider-Man: Brand New Day released on March 17 reaches 1 billion views on YouTube, becoming the first movie trailer to do so. (People.com)
The Lebanese foreign ministry says that the decision to expel Mohammad Reza Raouf Sheibani as Iranian ambassador doesn't affect diplomatic relations between the two countries. (Arab News)
NASA states that it plans to pause the Lunar Gateway project and redirect efforts toward developing infrastructure for sustained operations on the Moon's surface, including a future moonbase. (AFP via The Witness)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Recognized by Guinness World Records as the world's oldest professional model. Death reported 24 March.Thriley (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Article needs work, basically a stub currently. - Indefensible (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Article needs to be expanded with more prose TNM101 (chat) 06:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready, currently a stub and some uncited statements. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Needed a picture so I took care of that and did some general clean-up. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:38, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
Only 166 words of prose at this time. Too stubby to be showcased on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Level 5 vital article on WikipediaEaglesFan37 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment there's some unsourced lines and paras. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I tried to improve the sourcing. Could do with fewer primary sources and a little citation cleanup, but I think it's probably adequate now. Grešla (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Italian songwriter. Needs more sources— Knightoftheswords 15:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Article needs some work. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Indian Catholic prelate.— Knightoftheswords 14:15, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality for now. Article needs work on citations TNM101 (chat) 15:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready as career section is currently has major sourcing issues. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Amanda Lathlin
Article:Amanda Lathlin (talk·history·tag) Recent deaths nomination Blurb:Amanda Lathlin was the first Indigenous woman to be elected in the province of Manitoba. She was know for advocacy for northern Indigenous communities and women's rights (Post)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Amanda was the first Indigenous Woman to be elected in the Canadian Province of Manitoba and she died in office on March 22—Preceding unsigned comment added by McCIrishman (talk • contribs) 14:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb--not particularly important outside Manitoba, and the article doesn't make clear why they were important beyond minor firsts and activism. Oppose RD, far too little prose for a feature, more tables and infobox than text. Departure– (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb per Departure. Oppose RD on quality as article is a stub. TheKip(contribs) 15:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I hope that my work on the article does not cause a conflict of interest, but the article's prose size should be big enough to pass at this point. Ornithoptera (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, oppose blurb The article has been nicely developed and should be fine for RD. Yakikaki (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Birthdate needs a source, as it does not appear in the nearest attached citation. Left guide (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, oppose blurb Brithdate now sourced. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. The article has had significant prose expansion since the last quality-based oppose. Left guide (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
U.S.presidentDonald Trump says he is postponing his 48-hour ultimatum for five days before attacking the Iranianpower plants as Iran and the U.S. have held "very good and productive conversations" on ending the war. Trump also claims that a "major points of agreement" focused on Iran's renunciation of the nuclear weapon are being talked. Iran denies any dialogue took place. (ABC News)(States Newsroom)
Brent crude futures fall 11%, trading just below US$100 a barrel for the first time in days, following the announcement by U.S. presidentDonald Trump about talks with Iran to end the war. (Reuters)
Slovenia becomes first EU country to introduce fuel rationing to cope with extra demand by drivers from neighboring countries. (BBC News)
Nominator's comments: Unfortunately, this is the deadliest crash involving the Colombian Air Force as well as beingthe second deadliest crash involving the Colombia Air Force as well as the deadliest crash of 2026 so far.CaptainGalaxy 12:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. More than 60 fatalities and dozens of injuries with the count expected to rise. As mentioned already, it is so far the deadliest aviation accident this year. It also isn't a stub. One thing I wanted to say though was that the deadliest aviation accident involving the Colombian Air Force was the crash of a Douglas DC-6 in 1985. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Noted, I have retracted that from the nomination, although it should probably also be removed from the article's lead too. CaptainGalaxy 12:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. per above ^ JimmyCetacea (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment We generally do not post military crashes when only military personnel are involved because such crashes are considered part of the risk of being in the military. Masem (t) 13:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Getting off topic and rather nasty
I take minor objection to your framing, as ITN should not have a bias against military misadventures per se. Rather, we can recognize that there is a direct connection between the perceived significance of an event and the breadth of coverage in RS, and thus the corpus of information available to compose a quality article. The article is currently short and uninteresting, and I oppose on that basis. This is probably because it is a military crash, but it is unnecessary for us to apply unwritten policy when the ITNQUALITY suffices. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a link to policy related to that, @Masem? Perhaps if it's during an ongoing war or something. But we snow posted in 16 hours when 78 were killed in a 2014 crash of the same model plane. Do you have any counter-examples of similar-sized crashes that weren't posted because they were peacetime military flights? Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
There's no policy, just that generally military crashes without any civilians involved do not get the attention of accident review boards, and typically get counted as part of the risk of being in the military. That 2014 crash illustrates this well - that article is still a stub 13 years later with little expansion about the cause, and far better simply added to some List of military aircraft crashes rather than a separate article. Masem (t) 03:20, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
That article could certainly be improved, @Masem - but that's a different issue - as is the investigation. So no policy - where are the examples of us making this decision before. I found a couple of similar examples, one we posted but with significant ground deaths as well. And the other was supported for posting, but the article never got there during the 1-week period. If the article isn't ready, then this process deals with this - but you said we generally do not post military crashes. When was the last peacetime crash of this magnitude that we opposed posting (other than article not ready grounds)? Nfitz (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Can you see how I made the exact same point you did without being a pointy jerk about it? Masem never said it was a policy, he said "we generally do not post" and he is 100% correct about that. No one owes you diffs to justify their position. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
What? Why the pointy rudeness and personal attack? And why claim asking @Masem's policy link and previous example was what you asked - when you didn't? I was your ally on this one! I await your apology. Nfitz (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
This is not Reddit, Nfitz. We are not allies and adversaries with the other editors, but that framing does explain why you thought your badgering was appropriate. Just chill out. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:57, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
??? I'm not even sure why you jumped into this, @GreatCaesarsGhost. I'm simply trying to understand @Masem's thoughts, before I chime in. And my gosh AGF ... read it as agree and disagree then - I await your apology GCG - or even comprehension on why you said anything - does Masem think I'm being a pointy jerk to him? Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Although we generally avoid posting military aviation accidents the extremely high death toll in this crash I believe would warrant posting. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 13:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support for high death toll. What's up with the C-130 crashing recently? NotKringe (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support in theory, big news in Colombia, receiving sustained coverage in international and Hispanophone press. Oppose on quality, short. — Knightoftheswords 13:36, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
And for the folks that will state that they don't want to keep treating this like a “disaster-pedia,” this wouldn't be a problem if we had greater consensus on more types of stories. I myself am not keen on ITN's overfeaturing of such stories, but I much prefer that to the I'm going to set higher standards for these events school of thought that will just make ITN's story pool even more limited and stale. — Knightoftheswords 13:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The article has now been expanded to include a lot more information. CaptainGalaxy 11:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment While we usually post military accidents when they involve notable people, the amount of deaths here should satisfy significance. But where are the details, what activities was it involved in, is it related to the well known Colombian insurgency, which jungle did it crash in etc. etc. Gotitbro (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Masem. Accidents and disasters are overrepresented in ITN. Like with the Daejeon factory fire and Flight 8646, there is no compelling reader interest for a blurb. Dr Fell (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
69 people being killed is more than both the two accidents you mentioned combined. I do agree we shouldn't add every single disaster and accident to ITN, however, almost 100 people dying in an aircraft crash is highly notable. Also, as someone said above, there has a been a lot of C-130 accidents recently. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Death toll alone is insufficient to determine notability. It may be a useful factor (among others) for news organizations in determining an appropriate level of coverage. ITN isn't a news service. The purpose of a blurb is select stories of interest to readers that have corresponding high-quality articles. In a couple days, analytics (I concede invoking them is a thorny subject) will show that readers have no interest in this story. This crash has already fallen to the bottom of BBC News' front page; Flight 8646 remains above the fold and is their second most-read story today. And Flight 8646 shouldn't be blurbed. Dr Fell (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
BBC News is also British... Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? Chorchapu (talk|edits) 03:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
I opposed Flight 8646, but my views may be shifting, @Dr Fell. It was nominated way too soon. The situation seemed pretty non-notable - but as time goes on, the story isn't the crash, but appears to be shifting to the gross failure and danger of US Air Traffic Control, with safety removed as a priority. And that's a huge story; but it's still too soon. Why do people nominate stuff like this as soon as they see the headline? There's never a rush, and we need to be topic-banning those that keep posting so many nominations too quickly before we can assess their significance. Nfitz (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
What is with you and calling for everyone you don't like on ITN to be topic banned? Also, I don't know what you mean by nominating before we can assess their significance, the point of a nomination is to assess significance. — Knightoftheswords 05:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
If a week or two passes before we can see how significant a story is, it's too soon then it is rejected long before. And good grief, you nominated 3 in a row yesterday - isn't one every week or so enough? It's not a competition! Do you really think there'd suddenly be at least 3 new blurbs a day? At least wait until the bodies are cold. Nfitz (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Reports indicate the proximate cause likely was human error by an air traffic controller, but it's too early to identify an ultimate cause. (I'm somewhat skeptical of any recent safety-related changes as the culprit. Globally, ATC is an area ripe for improvement and automation.) But the larger point you are making is spot-on. Immature stories are rushed into ITN as candidates. The candidate has seven days to secure consensus, often not long enough for impact or significance to become clear. Stories suited for Current Events get pushed into ITN, because (I speculate) CE does not have a prominent module featured on the homepage. And there's no consideration if what has been posted is of interest to readers. Editors never have to assess their judgement and repeat the same errors. ITN is fundamentally broken and does not justify the space allotted to it on the homepage. Dr Fell (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong Support 66 people dead in an aviation accident is almost inherently significant: aviation accidents of that scale are relatively rare and almost always generate enduring industry reforms and investigations. I will also state the obvious, which is that arguments that this is unimportant or “uninteresting” etc to the average reader, are pretty blatantly Anglo-centric and would very unlikely be made about a crash in California that killed 70 people. Not accusing anyone of bad faith, to be clear, but the opposition to this is a pretty prime example. FlipandFlopped㋡ 19:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment While there isn't an exact timestamp in the article, I believe this event happened on 23 March, not 24 March, in Colombia time. Could someone look into that and move the nom to the appropriate date? Cheers! Departure– (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
That is my bad. I am not used to nominating here and wasn't sure if I was meant to place it on the day the accident happened or on the day I nominated. I see now I overlooked the guidelines telling me what to do. Sorry. CaptainGalaxy 20:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I have expanded the article to provide more context as well as added an aftermath and responses section since the article's nomination. CaptainGalaxy 21:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Nice work. I'll move to support, as we should be rewarding substantial quality improvements to the main space. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I am usually not in favor of blurbing "accidents"... But 70 killed is compelling. Tradediatalk 15:10, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Belated Support - I was waiting for @Masemto give an example to support his claim we don't normally post such accidents, but they didn't have one. Nfitz (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Oscar-nominated actress, known for roles in Lenny and the Superman movies. Renerpho (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now Filmography and Awards sections are unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Sufficiently sourced now. ItsShandog (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support a handful of missing refs, but sufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs a few more references still. - Indefensible (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support While this is a domestic issue this was a central point of the Meloni government. The failure of this to pass is a huge deal in Italy and is a turning point in her premiership. There is precedent in Italy of PMs resigning after major referendums fail - Matteo Renzi comes to mind. Just next year is the general election, and this is a blow to her election chances. Meloni as well as many in her inner circle hold frustrations with the judiciary as it has hindered her reforms in the past. The referendum is seen as sort of a litmus test of her government and it pierces her "aura of invincibility" that she as so far managed to hold on to. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 02:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose I understand the possible consequences for Meloni and her government, but for now, a lot of this is speculative, and limited to domestic politics. Meloni said she wouldn't resign, so there don't seem to be any immediate consequences. That might change, in which case we should revisit the item. Renerpho (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, sustained, widespread coverage throughout multiple news outlets for some time, major political development in Italy irrespective if she resigns. Article is mostly decent, but could use some expanding on the ref's aftermath. — Knightoftheswords 06:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
If she resigns as a result of this rejection, then that makes sense to post. Speculation that this referendum failure will lead to her resignation is not appropriate to consider for ITN because nothing has happened yet. Masem (t) 11:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
She already stated during the campaign she would not resign and it makes no sense for her to do so. Indeed, for what I have seen, the coverage is not about her resignation but the fact she suffered a significant blow, that the "No" side was not favoured by the polls (albeit they showed a trend towards it and there was a two-week pause due to silenzio elettorale that did not show the extent of the trend towards "No"), and the turnout was almost on (2022) general elections levels rather than European elections as was expected (polls generally showed that an higher turnout would have favoured the "Yes" side, which did not materialise; this is not to be mean as a criticism of the polling industry but rather to show how the result was an upset, which is an important part of the coverage and why it is consideraded significant). Whether that is enough to warrant a blurp, it is up to the community to decide. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
If its simply that her standing or reputation got tarnished but is not leading to any change of leadership, that makes for a very poor ITN story, because the impact is very very difficult to judge without bringing up politics. Masem (t) 13:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Officially, is it really that big of a change that was rejected? It seemed a fairly minor judicial administration rearrangement. Plus it was rejected by the voters, no nothing has really changed in the end. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - If this does pass, we should definitely use the alternate blurb. The main blurb is a bit too wordy for those not already intimately aware of the subject. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed. The sortition was perhaps one of the reasons why the reform was rejected on the merits but was not even the main part of the reform, which was about the separation of careers between judges and prosecutors, among other things. Davide King (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong Oppose and Close The event – a referendum did not pass – is suited for Current Events. And it is included there. The Support votes are largely attempts to read political tea leaves, something not even remotely appropriate for ITN. Blurbing an event that did not happen would be a new low. Dr Fell (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Renerpho. Significant in the moment for sure, but a lot of the impact is currently more hypothetical in nature. TheKip(contribs) 16:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support There are non-Italian sources talking about it. If it passed, it would have been more significant. The quality of the article pushes it over the line for me, it is the best summary (not in Italian) that I have seen. Rolluik (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
"The quality of the article pushes it over the line for me, it is the best summary (not in Italian) that I have seen", thank you so much.:-) Davide King (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Attracted international news coverage and the article is very good quality. No credible reason not to post. It's in the news and we have a great article. AusLondonder (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Per AusLondoner and Rolluik. This referendum is being commented on by the RS as a significant event, and it has attracted widespread, indepth coverage. That is the core ITN metric, nothing else. Also, with all due respect, it is just flat out untrue that referendums with a negative result are "unsuitable" by way of rule or would be some kind of "new low". We have, in fact, posted failed referenda in the past: see e.g. 2014 Scottish independence referendum and 2016 Colombian peace agreement referendum. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:26, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted alt While some dissenting opinion, there is consensus to post. SpencerT•C 21:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Lebanon war and 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis
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.
Post nomination comment, removed TL article since there's clearly no consensus, and replacing with Lebanon war, which is in a similar bucket with the Hormuz crisis. — Knightoftheswords 02:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
The strait crisis and the war are linked tightly, it makes no sense to include both as ongoing. Masem (t) 13:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps as a bracketed item but we have far too many sub-conflicts (Red Sea et. al.) to selectively only list that. And I don't recall there being any agreement to post the timeline, which I argued then as do now is unnecessary bloat. Gotitbro (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@Gotitbro: the Hormuz crisis is objectively the sub conflict receiving the most global coverage and having the most global consequences. The only other subconflict I can see being included is the Lebanon war. — Knightoftheswords 13:41, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I see all of these as being inextricably linked to the main war itself, including the strikes on Gulf states which are just as major a focal point of the global fallout. Though I am not in principle opposed to including either of those (Hormuz, Lebanon) but certainly bloat is a consideration. I oppose the timeline still.
Nonetheless, this could still be better handled as separate noms. Cheers. Gotitbro (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Again, we are not seeing the forest for the trees. ITN is for highlighting quality updated articles. If a target is not being updated or is not written in an encyclopedic manner, it is not of sufficient quality to be posted. Editors have come to the belief that we have to post events because they are significant, but that is just part of the intent. Also, your read of consensus in both cases is completely incorrect: one was evenly split and the other was unanimously against. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost, only 2 people on the hormuz crisis nom stated that they were flatly opposed to posting it; most said they were open to it being posted if the war went on and the original blurb rolled off. — Knightoftheswords 17:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
That's straightforwardly untrue. 4 of 6 explicitly said it was covered by the Iran War ongoing, and one said that maybe it could be bracketed. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
If you're including Salmon and Nfitz as part of those 4, they stated that it should be part of an Iran war ongoing; note that this was when the blurb was still on. — Knightoftheswords 13:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The link is right there for anyone that is interested, but no; they most assuredly did not say that. Speaking about a Hormuz ongoing, Salmon said "Oppose Covered by Iran war and soon will be in ongoing" which is explicitly opposition to posting Hormuz separately. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean @Knightoftheswords281, but that's not what I said. Also, this is too soon to get into lots of details in the ongoing. Let's see how it's going next year. Nfitz (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per GreatCaesarsGhost. SpencerT•C 16:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I saw no consensus to add. With talk today of the war ending, and oil prices down significantly, I don't see that this has any more urgence. The war itself is already blurbed. Nfitz (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Talk of war ending and oil prices going down don't actual mean the war is actually ending. For example we've seen tasks of the Russo-Ukrainian war ending for years and it's still ongoing. FallingGravity 17:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
While true, there's no rush to add. And no consensus previously, so surely this is a procedural close if the nomination was gaslighting us. Nfitz (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support adding the Strait of Hormuz crisis in brackets after Iran war. Weak oppose adding the timeline as it is largely redundant with the Iran war article at this point. FallingGravity 17:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reason I made last week - let the war develop before adding the timeline. The current article in the Ongoing section (2026 Iran war) currently serves more "important" information than the timeline - the timeline mainly makes points of drones hitting targets or individuals being killed. As always, we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. If the information found in another article is more encyclopedic, we will refer to that article. If the current article in Ongoing dies down in terms of development/information being added, sure, we can link the timeline instead. But with the recent developments (especially Trump going out of his way to claim that there were productive talks to end the war), I doubt this will drag on for as long as the Ukraine war. TwistedAxe[contact] 00:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
- Support Strait of Hormuz Crisis, Weak Oppose Timeline - The Strait of Hormuz Crisis is definitely a notable event in the world right now, and I'd consider it separate enough to be a different link in ongoing. As for the Timeline, the main Iran War article covers it in enough depth as of now in my opinion, maybe revisit in a few more weeks if the war continues (although hopefully it wont). ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 03:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support adding Hormuz Crisis in brackets, weak oppose timeline as per FallingGravity. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I feel that "Iran Ongoing" is enough. There are already many items in Ongoing... Tradediatalk 17:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Iran Ongoing is enought to cover these events. Guz13 (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American billionaire businessman and majority owner of OnlyFans.ROY is WARTalk! 13:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support 3084 characters (470 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 13:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Well sourced, no glaring errors, decent sized article, a good example of what RD is for. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Another aviation disaster.Davey2116 (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support dozens of injured, receiving sustained coverage from multiple RSes, will be looked for by our readers. — Knightoftheswords 08:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
'Support per both above. I came here specifically to find this article. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 08:48, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Do you really think an incident involving two fatalities and ‘dozens’ of injuries is ITN-worthy? I don’t care that it happened in New York; I don’t even understand why it’s got its own article. It’s a minor incident. This isn’t going anywhere. A waste of editor's time. _-_Alsor (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I oppose this blurb for being a minor incident. But the thing is, air accidents/incidents is rare enough that even the ones that have no fatality were getting their own articles. Even an incident as minor as runway excursion (AirJet Angola Flight 100) gets its own article. The point of these minor incidents article is to show that even slight slip through the sky-high safety standard of aircraft industry did not go away unnoticed. NotKringe (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
I personally think the article itself is fit for Wikipedia, as it's not everyday an incident involving air travel occurs, let alone a fatal one. There currently is an article for a similar accident in 2022 (LATAM Airlines Perú Flight 2213), where an Airbus crashed into a fire truck, killing the occupants of said truck. There are numerous other incidents/accidents with even less or no fatalities with Wikipedia articles, like engine failures or runway excursions. Blubtheclio (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not a significant aircraft incident at all, either for New York or the U.S. Gotitbro (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not every aircraft accident rises to the level of ITN, even ones in the U.S. Black Kite (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is not a "disaster". This is too minor to be ITN. Tradediatalk 09:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Contrary to what Alsor97 says, I think that a commercial airline collision causing fatalities at a major international airport clearly deserves its own article. But it does not rise to the level of significance expected for articles at ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Plane crashes, especially of this type are quite rare, and it is quite relevant as of now. However, the disaster itself is still relatively minor, even though it is in NYC. Blubtheclio (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. The incident would be just as notable (or not) if it took place at the much busier Charlotte Douglas International Airport. Being in NYC is not a claim to fame in its own right. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
>Another aviation disaster. Oppose on notability. ~2026-18003-50 (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
You can't be serious. Other planes crashing means every crash isn't notable? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The user above was quoting the nominator's statement, which of course shows no rationale for notability/significance. Gotitbro (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose on notability Good faith nom, yet while I am reluctant to impose any quantifiable threshold for total casualties or damage to be regarded as 'notable' for air disasters, I consider the scale of this crash too small and its impacts too local to have sufficient significance for ITN. The Air Canada Express Flight 8646 article is decent quality but there is precious little detail that has been made available to the public about the cause of the crash (noting there are 2 reported deaths at present). Oppius Brutus 12:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Stuff about temporary closure of the airport is trivial. So if posted, I'd suggest something like: Air Canada Flight 8646 crashes into a fire truck, killing 2 people at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. Jona☎ 12:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support as it did cause both fatalities and many injuries, as well as shut down the airport. It has sustained significant coverage and has gotten articles from foreign news sites (examples: Canada, England, Germany and India). Bloxzge 025 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Tragic for those involved, but this is a minor transport accident. We don't post every time a car crash kills two people; being in a plane doesn't make this any more significant. Modest Geniustalk 13:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose probably the type of event that is better docented in a table that a separate article, but definitely not a major accident for ITN. Masem (t) 13:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support obviously a major safety issue in the New York class 1 airspace. Loss of life is not the only factor for notability. check the ATC with ground movements. --~2026-17912-34 (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Why should airsafety issues be separately considered for an aviation incident? The notability here (for both enwiki and ITN) stems from the casualties. Gotitbro (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh, interesting. Would you kindly link to the relevant guidelines "for both enwiki and ITN" that stipulate notability being driven from casualties? --~2026-17912-34 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
How many airplane disasters can you remember where the headline wasn't about the death toll? Only one I can think of is US Airways Flight 1549, and that is obviously a massive exception because of how unusual it was. Planes crash on the runway all the time. Elipticon (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Just because it happened in the US doesn't make it notable, and the low number of deaths just nullifies it TNM101 (chat) 14:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - come on folks. A ground collision with 2 dead? Not related to airspace? Is this USA-centrism ... would be discussing this in Addis Ababa? Nfitz (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on its face. A small-scale and temporary termination of service for a single airport, regardless of how important that airport is, isn't world news. The accident itself was also small in scale. Departure– (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Tragic, but (thankfully) comparatively minor in scale. TheKip(contribs) 18:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
One person is killed and 10 others are injured, including one critically, when a natural gas explosion collapses two residential buildings in Fatih district, Istanbul, Turkey. (The Canadian Press)
Italians begin voting on a constitutional amendment that proposes separating the careers of judges and public prosecutors by splitting the High Court of the Judiciary into two bodies, while also establishing a High Disciplinary Court to oversee disciplinary proceedings. (Reuters)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American bluegrass guitarist and singer-songwriter.~2026-18254-01 (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former Prime Minister of France and 2002 presidential candidate.Mr. Lechkar (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support even a Blurb He was Prime Minister for five years during a cohabitation meaning that he was the one who governed France and not Jacques Chirac who was President but with no parliamentary majority —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Notable head of government for five years. Boud (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment if thus is to be a blurb wed need more dedicated info about what made him a major figure in French politics behind just being PM for five years. There's stuff in there about favorable policies that would seem to imply he should have this type of recognition but the article is Jason surprisingly short making me wonder if that exists.Masem (t) 13:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose due to quality Article needs some major ref work and some expansion either in this PM section or a legacy section explaining why Jospin was an influential PM. Seeing how long he lasted as PM with some info I’ve read, he did pass some notable policies that impacted the country. I think there is a case to establish Jospin as an influential PM but the article isn’t showing it. Once article is fixed up and demonstrates how impactful Jospin was, I’d support blurb. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality Signficant numbers of uncited statements and sections, also the book Social Democracy in Power: The Capacity to Reform is cited a dozen times but without any page numbers making it impossible to confirm. Black Kite (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support when ready One of the most relevant French PMs. ArionStar (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
If you are supporting a blurb, you should say so, rather than imply it. Schwede66 01:01, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality, support blurb per above. — Knightoftheswords 14:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
What issues are still there? The article seems good Varoon2542 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
a lot of content is unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready due to sourcing issues. ~2026-19514-21 (talk) 11:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Artist and activist associated with the Downtown New York art scene. Death reported 22 March.Thriley (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Article is currently a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
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: ITN/R event. More than 99% of the vote is counted.PtolemyXV (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The article has good content, awaiting some expansion of the “Results” section and an “Aftermath” or “Reactions” section could be added. However, there are several unsourced paras; I will add some cn tags. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose original blurb I strongly oppose using the term "wins" for plurality seat winners in parliamentary elections. "Wins" may wrongly imply that the election "winner" is likely to be in power, which doesn't seem to me to be the case due to Golob's coalition losing their majority. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 00:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I oppose using the term "win" for the blurb. The election resulted in a hung parliament, as no party bloc gained a majority of 46 seats (Golob's bloc has 40 seats, while Jansa's bloc has 43 seats). CastleFort1 (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support the feature but oppose the blurb, as this election has resulted in a hung parliament and Golob's current coalition fell below the current opposition (40 to 43 seats, respectively)
Would propose changing it to 'wins the plurality of seats in the 2026 Slovenian parliamentary election' Green7501 (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
moreover, support alternative blurb 1 Green7501 (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support alt2 - we tend to use the wording "wins the most seats" for PR elections where majorities are unusual, it's simple and clear enough. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:40, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support alt2 - This is an ITNR event, and the alt2 wording is clearest in the circumstances. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Parties and coalitions section is unsourced and need be filled with sources. Shadow4dark (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support alt2 as its wording is clearest. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support alt2 - Clearest and explains the context in the parliamentary system. Apparently Slovenia doesn't have the concept of a minority government? UK and Canada use that term. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Quality comment: I count a total of nine different {{citation needed}} inline tags (Some of the unsourced statements are also written in future tense for dates that are now in the past). The table at 2026 Slovenian parliamentary election#Parties in Parliament is also orange-tagged for sourcing issues. It seems that a few individual cells are cited but most of the table is not. A single master reference would probably be fine for that type of thing, if available. Left guide (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Seven people are killed when a Qatar Emiri Air Force helicopter crashes after a techincal malfunction during a routine mission over Qatar's territorial waters. (Reuters)(ASN)
At least 230 people are rescued, ten of whom are hospitalized for hypothermia, during flooding and storms in Hawaii, United States. Around 5,500 people are evacuated ahead of a second storm. (BBC News)(CBC)
The Iranian parliament says that it is preparing to pass a law that would impose fees on ships for "safe passage" through the Strait of Hormuz. (Middle East Monitor)
Nominator's comments: Lately nominated. Not ITN/R. The article has a game summary.𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗷𝗮𝘆𝗮𝟲𝟳 (talk). 01:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose. We already post a lot of association football items every year. If we were to post the women's AFC, to be consistent we would also need to post the women's editions of all the continental championships - a substantial expansion. Although women's football is getting more attention in recent years, it's still far less than the men's game gets. The sport is a long way from gender equality - that's unfortunate but not our job to fix. If we want to post more women's football, I suggest the Women's Champions League would be more appropriate than the women's AFC. Modest Geniustalk 14:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose User:Modest Genius said it very well. We have too much "sports" already. Tradediatalk 19:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on postworthiness, you can't complain about posting too much sports stuff on ITN when we post far below what we should be posting. Focus on gathering consensus on more topics on ITN to balance out this stuff; this cascade spiral of "we didn't post X, so we shouldn't post Y," or "we don't post enough to justify posting this" is exactly how ITN got to its current state and it needs to be halted before ITN only consists of the world cup, elections, and 100+ death events (since now people are starting to significantly up their casualty "requirements" as of late). — Knightoftheswords 19:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Point of clarification: Can you explain 'when we post far below what we should be posting'? Dr Fell (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
As of this instant, half of the blurbs are about sports. Tradediatalk 18:23, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Modest Genius and Tradedia. Sport is overrepresented in ITN. No reason to add a non-ITN/R minor trophy win. Dr Fell (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Oppose for now as there is two citation needed tags. However, once sources are found, I will change my vote to support. CN tags fixed. Changing my vote to heavy support. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Conditional support only RD fix the CN tags first, please. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
@Alsor97: Nobody proposed a blurb, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify that you don't support one. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
I know pretty well how this works, so I'd better be prepared. Don't take it so seriously. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Only two CN tags in such a large article aren't disqualifying, especially since they're both very small. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Don't much stricter citation standards apply to Main Page articles? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 19:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, but the exact wording of the quality rules for ITN say one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article. Both tags are a small enough part of the article to where I'm not really worried about it personally. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Good quality article, only a single citation needed remains.
Support I did not spot any glaring issues with the article aside from the one CN note others have pointed out, which shouldn't hold it back otherwise. Article is in good shape overall. ~2026-17771-63 (talk) 00:16, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Ready Article is clearly in good shape with no serious issues. –DMartin (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: This article was already in quite decent shape, so let me know if the regular editors should be added here.CMD (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Was just about to nominate this, article looks great. Ornithoptera (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support 13594 characters (2230 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 12:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality. ForeignPerspective (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Article is long, sourced, and has no issues. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is in good shape, much more so than most RD subjects. Clearly deserves to be highlighted TheFellaVB (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Belgium says that it will consider participating in securing the Strait of Hormuz if a ceasefire is in place and if the operation is conducted within a clear international framework. (AA)
Government forces arrest three men suspected of participating in the February attacks and mass abductions in two villages in Kaiama, Kwara State, Nigeria. The suspects are cooperating with authorities to locate the kidnapping victims. (The Punch)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Medicine Nobel laureate in '89.— Mignof (talk|contribs) 13:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article long enough and sourced. Grimes2 13:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now as the article is decently long, but only has three citations. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is relatively well fleshed out, and this is a significant industrial accident. Although I would feel better if there were more diverse sources, it seems like everything in the article is supported by the sources that are there. I'll start searching for a photo. –DMartin (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I'd say take this to wikinews, but apparently they're shutting that down because writing random inconsequential news stories on a wiki just isn't helpful. Maybe we should take the hint. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Is a similar accident occurred in the United States more relevant than a South Korean one? ArionStar (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't see why it would be, or what the physical location has to do with this at all. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Tennessee is a bad precedent. I don't want to keep treating this like a “disaster-pedia,” so IMO I'm going to set higher standards for these events. It's not an extraordinary disaster with an extraordinary number of victims, nor does it have a significant short- or long-term impact on the environment. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak Oppose: Building fires are unfortunately relatively common, as evidenced by the list of building or structure fires. The 2025 Tennessee manufacturing plant explosion should not be used as precedent; although the death toll is similar, the primary reason the Tennessee disaster was notable was due to the large explosion that destroyed the plant rather than a fire. However, it should be noted that the similar Hwaseong battery factory fire was posted in June 2024 due to its death toll, which was only slightly higher than this event. --Leviavery (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Lets try to make ITN a little more encyclopedic. Since this event is not compelling, I say oppose. Same for the 2025 Tennessee manufacturing plant explosion. Tradediatalk 05:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Can you define what you mean by making ITN more encylopedic? @Tradedia: — Knightoftheswords 12:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
@Knightoftheswords281: Yes, i mean less accidents and minor sports (too many things in ITNR and also see 2026 AFC Women's Asian Cup final nomination above). Tradediatalk 18:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Conditional support, not really of the quality I'd like before being featured on the MP. — Knightoftheswords 12:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Tradedia. Dr Fell (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Support - The article is now well cited and organized. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now as there is still a few citation needed tags. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Remaining CN tags have been resolved. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It's quite surprising that he hasn't had more attention as Buffy was quite big in its day and he has died comparatively young. Anyway, the article seems fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
He died on the same day as Chuck Norris, which took up a lot of the news cycle (only so much time can be devoted to celebs per day). Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, in decent shape. CMD (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Who usually gives credit to the nominator or the updater? I made substantial updates to the page, but neither I nor the nominator received the In the news credit. ItsShandog (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Done, usually I don't do it myself but happy to if you ping me;) Tone 12:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Article needs updating 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:ITNQUALITY.
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English journalist and broadcasterNessiecalls (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, needs more sources. Article is otherwise of OK quality. ForeignPerspective (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is in good shape and well sourced. –DMartin (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The article seems fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Note Nomination was proposed by globally-locked LTA account.-- Ponyobons mots 20:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
That's irrelevant as the nomination is quite basic and the subject is very respectable. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
It may be irrelevant to you, others may disagree, which is why I posted the notification here as the blocking checkuser. I didn't support or oppose the nomination, merely noted the block. -- Ponyobons mots 21:56, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Cesar Chavez sexual abuse
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The American labor and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez has had a dramatic fall from grace in recent days as revelations of extensive child sexual abuse (that produced two children) unleashed by a recent NYT expose have led to cancellations of events and removal of names celebrating his legacy. The article is class, so it's of fairly good quality for the MP. The story has been receiving extensive, sustained coverage from multiple high-profile sources in the US and across the Americas, and even a few from Europe. This sudden tarnishing of Chavez's legacy, which has extended throughout labor movements across the West, as well as discussions about Latino identity throughout the New World, would be a decent, unique feature on ITN that will intrigue readers of the MP.— Knightoftheswords 21:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Post nomination comment - alternatively, if we include Dolores Huerta, we can get a article on ITN. — Knightoftheswords 07:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Per the nomination, the article is of fair quality. As for notability, these news articles from reputable sources and international coverage make it clear that the Cesar Chavez revelations have become very notable in the news. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Although WP:BLPCRIME does not apply since Chavez is deceased, if posted, the blub should reflect that most news outlets are referring to these "revelations" as allegations of sexual abuse and are not directly stating that they are confirmed. --Leviavery (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose First, we are not judges; we do not pass judgement, nor do we confirm crimes, so we cannot indulge in the over-dramatisation of an extremely regrettable situation if nothing objectively verifiable has been confirmed regarding what he has done. Second, this is not USA-pedia. Chavez is a significant figure in the United States, not elsewhere. A local issue, a local drama, of local importance. A waste of time. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Yet-proven allegations so that blurb already doesn't work. And while events and other aspects are being cancelled, we should be waiting until some resolve on those allegations. This doesn't mean the details can't be covered on his page, but we should not be pushing it on the main page at this time. Masem (t) 23:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This is a shocking news about a historic figure. It is a good occasion to showcase a highly encyclopedic article. This will introduce our readers to some important historic events, as opposed to the usual useless bus crashes and fires in night clubs... Tradediatalk 23:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That is a moral belief about what should be seen by our readers, and isn't the purpose of ITN. If you want this page on the front page, then there is the Featured Article process which is better suited for highlighting articles. And besides whenever a scandal hits, hundreds of thousands of people go straight to the page anyways. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm not a judge here, but I'm pretty sure there's a better word to refer to these incidents other than "useless". Also Oppose since it's merely allegations as of yet, and afaik we don't post a blurb about the removal of CSA monuments in the fallout of BLM protests since it's more of gradual process. NotKringe (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Point well taken. I meant "useless" in terms of encyclopedic value and education. Tradediatalk 00:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait until closer to March 31 (Cesar Chavez Day) so we have a better idea of what's happening to the aforementioned celebrations. Some states are already rebranding and renaming the holiday to focus on the United Farm Workers, and some of the places named after Cesar Chavez are being renamed to honor his alleged victims. FallingGravity 01:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Isn't this really just "Americans potentially end a holiday"? Uh, plenty of countries have national holidays, but we don't announce the addition or removal of them. Would we do the same if this was a national holiday in Mexico, Spain, Thailand, or Venezuela? USA is not the world. It's also not clear the significance even for the Americans. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not even an official federal holiday here in the U.S., so the significance was already somewhat muted. Certainly local celebrations being canceled or altered don't rise to the significance of ITN. rawmustard (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh my, that's even worse! yes, this is barely relevant. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Maybe we should say "allegations" or even "credible allegations" instead of "revelations". The current wording seems too certain. –DMartin (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
We're not investigators, and not even equipped to be able to make that kind of analysis. Who knows what the credibility of the accusations are? All we can do is report what others have concluded. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Masem and Alsor. ~2026-17546-66 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Sex scandals are quite common – Kevin Spacey is also in the news for example. As these are just allegations from many years ago, WP:NOTSCANDAL applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Masem above. Yakikaki (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Another cancellation of a person who died, because of allegations. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Longterm Metropolitan of Kyiv and Exarch of Ukraine, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv PatriarchateSkoropadsky (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support if the single cn can be addressed. Yakikaki (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak supportthere's two cn tags. It's surprising that there's no mention of Russia's invasion and its effects over the UOC._-_Alsor (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
I think you're referring to WP:ITNTRUMP, but this still has the same effects and fallout as the Greenland crisis (an ITN article).
Also I would like to point out that such a statement can have very tangible effects on US foreign policy and standing, especially with the already-strained relations it has with NATO since the Greenland crisis, unlike other outrageous statements. This is basically telling the 70+ year US alliance with NATO and the Indo-Pacific to "demolish itself", is it not? LS8 (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and SNOW close Good faith nom, but WP:SNOW and WP:ITNTRUMP are likely to apply here. This is one singular statement from Trump that corresponds to a small subsection of what is otherwise a broader article about American isolationism in the 2020s. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and Snow Close. Target article is an excellent candidate for prompt deletion. Dr Fell (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and close per all above. TheKip(contribs) 02:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
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.
Ronnie O'Sullivan made snooker history, with a record-setting 153 break, being only the second time in professional competition a player has scored a break over the "maximum" 147, at the 2026 World Open in Yushan. ~2026-18694-62 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Anything over 147 is, in fact, extremely rare in snooker, because it is only theoretically possible if one's opponent fouls before the first ball is potted and does so in an unlucky manner. The only previous such was 148, about 25 years ago. The maximum break article goes so far as to list about 10 practice sessions where this has been claimed to have happened. The actual ultimate maximum break under these circumstances is 155. I find it interesting that the NYT mentions this achievement---snooker news is normally non-existent in the USA. ~2026-18694-62 (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I think that 95% of our readers have no clue what the heck this is all about... Tradediatalk 16:32, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
95% of our readers, even they're sports fans, don't have any idea about sports that aren't popular in their own countries. That doesn't necessarily mean that stories about those sports aren't notable. This one is a incredibly rare event (only the second time ever it has happened in the professional game). Does it rise to the level of ITN? Well, it wouldn't be the first time we've posted a sports record, by a long way. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment While I disagree that a snooker record should be dismissed because "nobody knows what snooker is", I can't in good faith make an assessment on this record's notability without knowing more about the sport. Good luck. Departure– (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I thought about nominating this as well, but concluded it's trivia. This isn't like a world record in other sports, it's a quirk of the rules that allows a score above the typical maximum. An analogy would be a cricket batsman scoring more than 36 runs in an over - technically possible, but requires an error by the opponent. There's very little to say about this other than explaining how the situation arose - which is reflected in the two sentence update. It doesn't have any further impact or encyclopaedic value. Modest Geniustalk 18:07, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm in the UK and so am familiar with snooker but haven't seen this in the news. Googling "snooker", what I'm finding is lots of coverage about the Crucible deal, which I did catch in a news bulletin. But I don't find coverage of this big break until the fifth page of results. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:18, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - This is on the BBC's snooker page, for what that's worth. But this is a widely played and widely televised sport, and it's an absolutely astonishing record, exceeding the previous one by five points and coming within two points of the theoretical maximum - and well over the usual maximum. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
But how often do we (or should we) post sports records? Natg 19 (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a good question, and one which I think is largely undecided. I generally think that actual new world records in professional/official play are generally pretty notable, but course records, etc, are not. Although I'm not a close follower of sport, I am generally happy with our sport coverage at ITN. I'd rather see a wider range of sports than lower tiers of sports and nations which already get coverage, so this is to me a good example of a sports story we could feature. (I am still trying to work out how to strengthen our coverage of entertainment other than sports, apart from the deaths of entertainers.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I would not have nominated this article if it was a question of a new snooker record. For the most part, I don't think sports records are ITN-worthy on their own, even if it involves long-standing records being broken. I nominated this because it's a remarkable feat that it even happened. And it seems the world's media has a bit of the same reaction. Very few snooker records make it outside the snooker press. In searching for coverage, I found newspapers in Laredo Texas and Hong Kong reported on it. That's what impressed me as far as nominating goes. ~2026-18694-62 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose since this is mere sports trivia. NotKringe (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
The BAZAN Group refinery in Haifa is struck in an Iranian missile attack, but with "no significant damage", according to Energy Minister Eli Cohen. (Al Jazeera)
The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom issue a joint statement condemning the Iranian attacks on commercial vessels and expressing their "readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the Strait". (Euronews)
In a joint statement after talks hosted by the United States, DR Congo and Rwanda say they have "agreed to a series of coordinated steps to de-escalate tensions and advance progress on the ground". (BBC)
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Place of death needs sourcewizzito|say hello! 16:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Place of death is cited in article, removed citation needed tag from the sidebar. Also removed old citation needed tag from the lede, fact was cited the body of the article. Looks ready to go to me. Jahaza (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:53, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English television personalityNessiecalls (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality grounds and also on grounds of influence. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Article created after death, unconvinced that he's notable and have tagged as such. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I just don't see why he would be notable. Could be AFD material. Tradediatalk 04:45, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Note Nominator is a sock of a banned account.-- Ponyobons mots 20:53, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The article looks fine and the references are WP:RS. I understand that "TV personalities" and reality TV stars are considered less notable than others by a large segment of editors, but this resembles more of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as they are in fact influential and widely written about whether we like it or not and this isn't the place to protest the world we live in (WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). Abcmaxx (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't post stubs. Schwede66 00:50, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed, Posted to RD) RD/Blurb: Chuck Norris
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Well known American actor. Wouldn't be surprised if this turns into a blurb nom. Article still needs work however.Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality for now. Oppose any thought of a blurb. When/if this article gets to the right standard, it should be RD only. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Updating to support RD now quality is okay. I’m surprised at the number of supports based on level 5 vital article status, given Len Deighton, who recently moved off RD was also ‘Vital 5’, but there was no thought that he should have a blurb. We shouldn’t be blurbing memes unless we want ITN to become laughable. - SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Sourcing still needs work. However, support blurb when ready because Chuck is a truly iconic figure in film and martial arts. I'm genuinely shocked that he's dead. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality, support blurb when ready Article has some sourcing issues that should be addressed with incoming obits. Norris is considered to be a pop culture icon, recognized globally, his death would be making international news and I'd argue is an influential mixed-martial artist. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready as others have pointed out, I support RD only once ready despite his memetic status. ~2026-17504-13 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb. He was not a top-tier transformational figure, as famous as he was. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready on quality. There's CNs, and the bibliography needs sourcing (but if they are published books, the ISBN should be sufficient). I'm wary of a blurb, becuase this is where fame/popularity/meme-worthy aspects are going to overwhelm the discussion compared to being a major figure, but there's elements that he may have been a major figure beyond films, but this absolutely needs to have far better expansion in the article and justification to support. We should not be blurbing because he seems to be an iconic actor to many. Masem (t) 14:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready for reasons others have pointed out. Weak support blurb as besides his status as a pop culture icon he was very influential in acting and played a major role in popularizing martial arts and Hong Kong cinema to international audiences. PolarManne (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb he was not well known outside of USA and he doesn't appeared to the top of his field (no legacy section) unlike other actors or MMA fighters that have gotten the blurb in the past. LiamKorda 14:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I can assure you he was very well known outside the USA. The Internet has no (well, few) limits. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't consider whether or not they were known internationally when determining an ITN blurb Elisecars727(talk)☺ 20:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb There should be no debate about transformative impact - Chuck Norris told transformative impact to hold his beer. CoatCheck (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think it's really fair to support your argument only with a joke. Humbledaisy (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
This is not a joke. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Blurb <sarc> I mean, obviously we should change it from Recent Deaths to Recent Chuck Norris, because death doesn't come for Chuck Norris, Chuck Norris comes for death. </sarc> Chuck Norris was a meme, but he wasn't actively working (his last work noted in the article was from 2020, though he lent his image to at least one thing since), and he was old. 86 isn't record breaking age territory, but it is still significantly above life expectancy. Oppose RD on quality. Most of the works section is very choppy proseline. I noticed at least once place where it said "nobody wanted to pick up <movie>. It made $20 million dollars at the box office.", which leaves the reader wondering how it made money if nobody wanted to distribute it. The article is tagged with "currently heavily edited", so I expect most of the issues to be worked out in the next 24 hours.
The time period of his activity isn't a factor. We are to avoid biases of recentism - this isn't a news outlet. That he lived to an average age (of someone who gets to their 30s) isn't relevant either - even somewhere with lower life expectancies. Nfitz (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The way those movies made money is clearly explained
No studio wanted to release it, so Norris and his producers four-walled it, renting the theaters and taking whatever money came in. The film did very well; shot on a $1 million budget, it made over $18 million at the box office.
Oppose blurb Hard to find the words, to be honest. Norris was a personality with name and face recognition in North America; I'm not convinced there's anything more to this than that. He was not a significant figure in popular culture outside of it and I see no reason to suspect his impact in his field was sufficiently great. In my country, the UK, he is most widely known for memes.Humbledaisy (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
He is well known all over the world Акутагава (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
BBC News sent out a breaking news push notification announcing his death, which they do not do for figures exclusively well-known in America. I'm not especially familiar with his work either, but it's best not preface arguments with "In my country..." You do not speak for Britain. Dr Fell (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose RD on quality, weak oppose blurb Another major celebrity death I learn about via ITN. Important to note that Death didn’t take him, he hunted down Death after deciding it was his time.
Seriously though, the jokes are a classic but he wasn’t a transformational-enough actor to warrant a blurb. I’m willing to strike this if consensus ultimately feels different, though. TheKip(contribs) 15:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb, worldwide known figure. Known to those who are not interested in martial arts and cinema. Chuck Norris is bigger figure worldwide than Hulk Hogan, and he was blurbed. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I wouldn't have blurbed Hogan either, but he was blurbed for being transformative in wrestling, which is a different situation from this one. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That's why we don't consider fame or popularity as being part of being a major figure. Masem (t) 15:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
@Black Kite and Masem: If 'professional wrestling' is a valid field, then 'Internet meme', where Churck Norris was certainly a transformative figure (see this for instance), should be as well. The difference is that, unlike the limited popularity of professional wrestling, Internet memes have become a global phenomenon. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I beg the question of "professional wrestling" at least under the terms of things like the WWF (which is known to be heavily scripted) being a valid field, I would consider those to be entertainers and have to be considered under that area. MMA, which is actual competition, or Olympic-type wrestling, those are valid fields, but comparing those fields to "internet memes" is nowhere close. If anything, a major figure in "internet memes" is going to be a researcher that documents them, not those that become subject of memes, since that is something absolutely gameable and driving by popularity. Masem (t) 23:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb - This is Wikipedia, not KnowYourMeme. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Once CN tags addressed. Due to his internet renown, he is a global household name. In addition, he had a transformative career in the field of martial arts, having been very responsible for bringing martial arts into the cinematic North American mainstream. His association with MMA makes it a stronger case than usual for a death blurb, relative to the typical “household name” celebrity noms, who weren’t necessarily transformative to a niche area as well like Norris is to martial arts. FlipandFlopped㋡ 15:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Surprised this is even a conversation. ITN not beating the rap today. Norris was absolutely not transformative in the world of martial arts or acting. He was a fringe A-list actor for a short time. The best argument is that he was substantial to American martial arts cinema, but even in that small niche he is eclipsed by Bruce Lee, Jean-Claude Van-Damme, and possibly Steven Seagal. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb once CN tags addressed Per reasons stated by Flipandflopped. Also the article clearly layouts how the acting career of Chuck Norris transformed the film industry through his field of martial arts. Essentially, the transformative impact of Chuck Norris was that he brought martial arts into comedy and action films. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb: Norris was a meme, not a legend. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
He wasn't just "a meme". Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Actually, he is in fact just "a meme" and nothing more, which is why I oppose blurb. ~2026-17559-69 (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
He was an author, screenwriter, actor and martial artist. Much more famous than you will ever be. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb: "Just a meme" would be actually be grounds for blurbing, not opposing. You just try to cash in your career by becoming a decades-long lasting Internet meme. Sneer at the sheer ridiculosity of Chuck's long-term post-career post-career all you want, it doesn't erase the fact that it happened. ~2026-18104-38 (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb He was very popular not only in North America, but also in post-Soviet states, including Russia, where I come from and where Chuck was indeed considered to be a legend by numerous sources K. M. Skylark (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, there's this strange thing that happens where people oppose posting something so as to avoid Western-Anglophone bias, but at the same time they think a person is only famous in Western Anglo-sphere countries because of their Western-Anglophone bias. Jahaza (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Obviously iconic but here seems to be an issue with the classification as level-3 vital and I suppose the article attracts vandalism of various kinds so it should be checked carefully. I'll be watching... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes this is definitely an error. I hope it will be fixed soon. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
There seems to be a bug with the template right now, I checked a couple other Level 5s and they all showed as Level 3s. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Every Level 5 article for a person I just checked is shown as Level 3 - with a redlink. The edit seems to have been done by cebot back in 2023. Perhaps a question for User:Kanashimi? Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I just made some changes to the code. Has the issue been resolved? Kanashimi (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to have @Kanashimi; thanks Nfitz (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
The readership numbers are in now and they clearly show that Norris was the dominant topic yesterday and so would be a sensible blurb. The Chuck Norris facts include:
The spike in readership for the main article was 3.6M. It was the only article to get a readership of millions on the day and this was more than 10 times more than Cesar Chavez, for example.
The spike was bigger than the comparable spike of just over 3M for Hulk Hogan – a similar macho martial artist and movie star whose death was blurbed by ITN.
This intense interest was not just American as the article was also the top read in other languages such as German. Just look at the French Wikipedia to see that they have already posted a picture of Norris on their main page.
Once again, the primary purpose of ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. These facts show that this was Norris yesterday but the window is closing and so time is of the essence. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:59, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
There is no rush, @Andrew Davidson. Most importantly, ITN posts aren't based on hits; you've been told this more than once. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
There are no specific criteria for the determination of major figure blurbs. WP:ITNRDBLURB doesn't say anything about "transformative", "legacy", "iconic" or any of the other concepts used in these discussions, except insofar as it discounts "puffery". It explains that each case is sui generis which means that editors treat them on their merits as they see fit. The readership views are a solid statistic which obviously arises as a combination of extensive coverage and reader interest. In this case, Chuck Norris was for a second day, the only article on Wikipedia to get more than a million views and continued to surpass all rivals such as Robert Mueller and Nicholas Brendon (Xander Harris) whose views on their deaths failed to reach such heights. It is therefore a plain fact that Norris's death is something special and so it remains my sui generis view that this merits a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb while the article may have a few issues, they're likely unnoticeable immediately to the average reader. Norris is undeniably iconic, whether a meme or not, people reading will more than likely recognize him. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a perfection contest. Its goal is to inform people.. at least I believe so. Ieditarticles (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - both once quality issues are addressed. It looks like Norris is being a bit undersold here by reducing him and his career to a meme or US only kind of deal. He had a pretty broad impact across martial arts, film, and television, he was a multi karate champion, appeared alongside Bruce Lee, and then was a house hold name as Walker, Texas Ranger across the US and Europe. The meme status came later and really is a testament to how recognizable he already was at the time. He was not a Bruce Lee, but very impactful in other ways, and given his lasting impact through decades of mainstream exposure, I think it meets the level to get a blurb. PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The more relevant death of a martial artist/actor since Bruce Lee. ArionStar (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support blurb ITN would not be doing its job in the eyes of visitors if he was not posted. Memetic, acting, and pure recognizability should be enough by our internal standards. An aside: The talk page for Chuck Norris seemed to be vandalized to bump him up to level-3 vital when I checked. He's level-5. Omnifalcon (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
"memetic, acting, and pure recognizability" are not our standards for posting because that would put undue weight on western celebrities, and we have to work against that systematic bias. There may be other reasons for posting a blurb but it cannot be based on only fame or popularity. Masem (t) 16:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The standard is the event can be described as current and there is consensus to post. That's it, so memetic, acting, and pure recognizability is valid, how strong an argument that is though is up to interpretation. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
No offense, but this comment makes a great case for blowing up ITN and starting over. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
None taken, I do not disagree. But if these are the criteria we should not misrepresent it as something else. PackMecEng (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
While we are open to other reasons to post RD Blurbs, the standard arguments to support such are whether the death itself is the story (not the case here at all), and whether the person was a major figure. Being famous is not equivalent to being a major figure, though many major figures are famous as a result of why they were a major figure. We have this problem that editors focus far too much on trying to weight popularity of a RD to push for a blurb too many times in the past that have made this a major problem. Again, I've suggested there may be other conditions that make him a major figure that would support a blurb, but they are not well expressed within the article, plus the article is still ways a way from being of quality to post. Masem (t) 17:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
For sure and those are reasonable things, but so is their argument, which was my point. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb. He was not a transformative actor, however many memes he spawned, and blurbing people on their level of pop culture capital is not something we should be doing. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb A well known figure should get a blurb. Although he isn't as well known as others. KreamoNoBrainos/Kreamy/Fat Man (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose – Still lots of citation needed tags and even more claims with no citations that remain untagged. ---C&C(Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb - Not near top of list of most important actors of his generation. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I would say the Level 4 actors are a good approximation for who should deserve a blurb. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That said, there's literally only 47 Level 4 actors, and I think only 9 are alive. From the Anglosphere, for the UK there's Peter O'Toole and Julie Andrews. For the USA there's Nicholson, De Niro, Schwarzenegger, Streep, and Tom Hanks. And maybe that's the way it should be. Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - this endless debate about people with borderline notability for blurbs is tiresome. We need a system to judge the importance of various people before they die - at least if the death is natural. And we do. Chuck Norris is Level 5 vital. Which is almost surprising given his B-list movie and television output. The real question should be is the blurb cut-off for RD blurbs Level 5 or Level 4. Certainly there should be no debate about Level 4. Obvious exceptions for current political leaders and where the death itself would be the story - like Rob Reiner - who was also Level 5 vital). Nfitz (talk)
Expect there are people who are not on the vital lists but still are major figures, and as per the recent discussion, additions to the list are not a rigorous process, probably just as individually subjective as RD blurbs. Masem (t) 17:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking at that page tells me how subjective that process is, which is why we definitely should not rely on vital l5 at all. Maybe there's an argument for L4 because of the promotion/regression system used for the upper tiers. Masem (t) 17:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
PS, @Masem, I must have missed that recent discussion, and should look at it. Can you point to it? Nfitz (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurbWP:OLDMANDIES. We need to stop blurbing every single insignificant rando in ITN. Oppose RD article has too many issues and isn't ready. Tofusaurus (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Chuck Norris is iconic. He's also an internet meme and that fits Wikipedia's audience. Guz13 (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Can you, @Guz13, point to the relevant Wikipedia policy regarding internet meme's and Wikipedia's audience? Nfitz (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb - per above, The fact that he became a world wide meme is proof of how immediately recognizable he is. Rockview13 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, Undecided on blurb Definitely deserves an RD with as recognizable as he is. Although it might be hard to come to terms with encyclopedically, the memes surrounding Chuck Norris are very well known and he has much more recognizability than other RDs. It feels like some editors are just taking out their frustration with people coming into ITN for the first time and making jokes. He definitely deserves an RD, and personally maybe a blurb but I typically don't support RD blurbs and don't want to be hypocritical. Normalman101 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb. An extremly well-known celebrity. If the blurb doesn't work, than support rd for sure. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, Oppose blurb. The article looks pretty dang good to me. Whether that was already the case or was recently edited following his death doesn't matter, the article's good enough now. If nothing else, the sheer number of Wikipedians coming to comment on it shows that he is well-known.
The section on his acting career is still almost entirely proseline. The article may not have any CN tags left, but it still does a very poor job of explaining Norris's career. Also, someone should do a pass on the article and make sure that it is presented cohesively and encyclopedically. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I don't think I really stressed my point enough when I stated my opposition earlier. I honestly feel quite staggered this is getting so much support and, I know people hate hearing this, but I don't think we've had a more clear example of reflexive Americanocentrism in ITN in a long time. There are so many comments now talking about him as "iconic", "extremely well-known", "recognisable" and it begs the question - to whom? As far as I can find, the answer is North Americans. As far as I can see, he is nowhere near the top of notability in his field. Even in the specific field of male Hollywood action film stars of the 1980s, his article does not demonstrate him as up there with Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger in terms of achievements, international notability and awards. More specifically, the field of male Hollywood action film stars of the 1980s who are known for martial arts is surely topped by Jackie Chan, whose lede establishes him as "one of the most iconic and influential martial artists in the history of cinema", the winner of an honorary Academy Award for "extraordinary achievements" in film and, according to one film scholar, "the most recognized star in the world". Norris's article makes no such case for him. The burden of proof now, then, is on users here who simply seem to be saying that he is a household name to them. David Jason is very well-known household name in the UK; I would never be so bold as to expect him to get a blurb on that alone. Humbledaisy (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
If some person known to a very small total amount of total, albeit from not America, can pass, then an actor known to millions of people, even if they are mostly Americans, can certainly pass! The number of non-Americans aware of the figure are probably just about equal. There's no such anti-British, anti-Indian, anti-literally anywhere else agenda for any other country. I can admit that Americans can kinda shove people around sometimes, but that's not the case here, we're just trying to get a famous actor into a RD. Additionally, your point on wether he was one of the top few best-known actors of the time is moot. Current RD Len Deighton isn't as well known as Ian Fleming, but he's still got one. Remember, ANYONE with a Wikipedia article is considered eligible for an RD. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
It should never be about how many people likely know the recently deceased, because that automatically biases against non-Western people and non-celebrities or athletes. ITN is to help feature quality content that has been in the news, and the death of a major figure that may be not well known in the US or UK but well known and established to be a transformative person (or similar metric) absolutely should be posted. Masem (t) 19:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
My point is exactly that people's eligibility should be based on a metric that has nothing to do with their nationality! Perhaps I didn't convey that clearly. If we don't bother with the nationality in the consideration, which we shouldn't, then everyone's got an equal shot, there's no bias toward any country. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
@Humbledaisy K. M. Skylark pointed out above that he was quite famous in Russia. Kevinishere15 (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Opposed Blurb he's barely notable for his work. The fact that a popular internet meme happens to feature him does not make him notable enough for a blurb. --TorsodogTalk 19:15, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD at least. Quite neutral on a blurb but he's definitely at least notable enough for an RD. Mtcat101 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
For those saying "support RD", RD is just based on him having an article, and whether the article means our ITN quality standards. It seems like this has not been met yet. 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:ITNQUALITY.Natg 19 (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose RD on quality Could you please take a closer look at the article before blindly supporting it? There are CN tags and an orange-tagged section. Either that's fixed, or we can't post it, no matter how big a Chuck Norris fan we are. Because popularity isn't incompatible with notoriety—both are undeniable—but not quite blurb-worthy enough: no legacy section, not a transformative career in the sector. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb I'm not American, and I only knew him primarily from memes. So while he's certainly well-known, he isn't quite the calibre of Arnie or Stallone. That being said though, we blurbed Hulk Hogan who is mainly known outside of the US for memes and within pro wrestling circle, so it's debatable which measures of "well known" we should use to judge someone for getting a blurb.
Support blurb I agree that he was a well-known celebrity worldwide, and the Chuck Norris facts are a clear sign of enduring cultural legacy. People don't need to enter politics, star in films, record music or play sports to become famous. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb class article, transformative individual in his field, and contrary to what some folks here state, he was indeed globally famous. Claims of "americocentrism" are a farce. — Knightoftheswords 21:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Farce seems a bit strong @Knightoftheswords281. There's plenty of USAcentroism in the project. Please avoid the drama. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support He was impactful in numerous ways as a martial artist, actor, and subject of an entire meme subgenre. I am pretty sure the meme itself brought him international impact, if nothing else did. I am surprised at the number of opposes other than quality concerns, which are admittedly valid. ←Metallurgist (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Citations needed: Both the martial arts and awards sections have several uncited statements. Regardless of consensus, these must be resolved before this has a chance of being posted anywhere on the main page. Left guide (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb I'm not seeing how he was transformative in his field. When it comes to martial arts in cinema, there have been more influential figures like Jackie Chan, Jean-Claude Van Damme, and Bruce Lee, who all have sections in their articles discussing their cultural impact, influence, and legacy. Norris' article has no such commentary. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Hey Admins! Clean this up!!!! Please remove every pointless, inappropriate "Support blurb" comment with reasons such as "He's iconic.". HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Why? It's as good a reason as any of the opposing people. PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
I think the joke comments are very inappropriate and I would suggest that those simply saying "He's iconic" and the like should be telling us what field they believe Norris to be the very top in, to be transformative in. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
I dont see any joke comments, also transformative is not a requirement or even really measurable. PackMecEng (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
No, it isn't. WP:ITNCDONT. It's not right for editors to support a person's death being blurbed because they, personally, liked them. –DMartin (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
The only part of ITNCDONT that applys here is Accuse other editors of supporting, opposing or nominating due to a personal bias (such as ethnocentrism). Which part were you referring to? PackMecEng (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
You don't get to decide what is or isn't valid. There are numerous evidence-free assertions and personal opinions in this discussion such as Barely notable; insignificant rando; absolutely not transformative and few !votes are supported by cited facts. The ITN sui generis method is essentially to hold a vote and so it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Blurb The coverage of his death has surprised me. His impact and the geographic breadth of his fame are much greater than I would have surmised. Most of the oppose votes are those unfamiliar with his reach, anti-American sentiments or dismissive snobbery because of his career as an action star. None of these are valid. The article is not ready, though. Dr Fell (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
It is not anti-American sentiment to suggest that people describing him as iconic and a household name should be considering how that applies on an international scale, and to suggest that he is less well-known outside North America than inside it, and I resent the implication. You are welcome to validate your own argument rather than assume other users are acting in bad faith. You mentioned BBC News sending a push notification earlier; that is true, however, they do send push notifications for a lot of deaths (Chris Rea got one in December) and this does not establish Norris as blurb-worthy nor does it prove his fame in the UK as equal to it in America. Additionally, I think it is fair to say that the BBC News website does now cater, to some extent, to an international English-speaking audience (they introduced a US pay model last year). I think BBC News is actually a good way to test Norris's notability in the UK. The earliest BBC News article I can find about him is from 2013, after his meme fame. If he was on the level of a Stallone or a Schwarzenegger, I would expect more of a paper trail in the UK. I would also expect major awards in his own country - Oscars, Golden Globes and the like - but he didn't get any. Humbledaisy (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, Oppose Blurb I support the RD because the quality is sufficient enough, orange tag in the awards section but its whatever. I can't support the blurb because there is no legacy section, and in my opinion he is just is not notable enough compared to other artists/actors. The standard for blurbing these kinds of entertainers and celebrities should be comparable to Ozzy Osbourne's influence and legacy, but that's just my opinion. hungry (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb Being famous is not enough to get a blurb. Not top of their field, not transformative. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb. Famous yes, transformative no. To use a comparison for an actor in the same line of work, if we were talking Arnold I think a case could be made for him especially since he was a much bigger star on an international level. That's the standard we should be following, which Chuck doesn't meet. Wizardman 00:06, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
You could make a case for Arnold Schwarzenegger as a man, given his achievements in body-building, many well-known movies, and politics and statesmanship. Chuck's movies were not as well-known as Arnold's and his other achievements were not as notable.
However, the legend that was built around Chuck Norris is arguably greater than any other person of this century, more so than Arnold's exceptionally high profile. That is significant, that is notable, and that is why Chuck Norris deserves a blurb. Ryan Reeder (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Just driving by, but even the arguably greatest living internet meme in history, Kabosu, didn't get a blurb, so meme value alone apparently doesn't warrant a blurb (though I was surprised when I checked to see that Kabosu didn't get a blurb) ~2026-17641-86 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Blurb Those who are talking about his memes are too young to understand. Those who are saying he is not well known outside of the US are too American to understand. He is a World icon because he is one of the transformative figures in martial arts movies. If the original hero is Bruce Lee, the original villain is Norris. As an example of his World icon status, here is a famous French standup comedian talking about him in a comedy show from 2007 at 7:51 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Gf6mVz8XYg). Also, France 24calls him a "legendary actor"Tradediatalk 01:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality, Support RD if article quality is improved. I mean he's well-known enough for an RD. I have no comments for the blurb. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 02:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb once ready. A pretty giant figure worthy of a blurb IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose blurb for the usual reasons. We cannot be posting to ITN every time an elderly person who used to be famous dies. We have recent deaths for a reason. I highly doubt Norris would as well-known as he currently is if it weren't for a meme about 15 year ago. I can't find any evidence of him being described as even remotely transformative in any field, acting or martial arts. –DMartin (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah good point, I doubt he would be well known if he wasn't important as well. PackMecEng (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Blurb It's not for his filmography. I think I've actually only seen one of his movies, and that was decades ago. He's only moderately well-known for about five others. His most well-known television role, Walker, Texas Ranger ran for nine seasons, and had some modest success, but peaked at only #15 in the ratings. No, he wasn't iconic as an actor, at least not by the standards of ITN for blurbs.
--It's also not for his prowess as a martial artist. His fame as an actor contributed to his notoriety as a martial artist, just as his martial artistry contributed to his success as an actor. However, there are individuals who have been more notable in film and TV and others who are more notable in martial artistry (though I wouldn't consider myself well aware of them, personally). And perhaps some, like Jackie Chan or the late Bruce Lee, who were more notable in both.
--And it's not even for the jokes and memes themselves, per se, although they, along with his performances and martial artistry, helped establish his unassailable tough guy persona. As an icon, he was transformative. In this respect, he may not have done much to achieve the greatness that was thrust upon him, but he embodied it well. He was the tough guys' tough guy. He was the legend of the legends. That is why people were dumbstruck that he died suddenly at 'only' 86. The jokes (which went far beyond memes), while fictitious, were effective in establishing him as an icon of a legendary status attained by no others.
--The man may not quite qualify for a blurb. The legend is perhaps first in line for a blurb. And the legend and the mythos are part of the man who died. And that is what sets him apart and what absolutely qualifies Chuck Norris for a blurb.
--(Given, of course, that the quality of the article is up to snuff and all that). Ryan Reeder (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Well said. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
STRONG Support; while yes the article needs rework, defo we can put it as an RD for now 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
we can't put it as an RD if "the article needs rework". _-_Alsor (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Blurb. Accept RD nomination Blurb is not essential, but put him into the RD. Squalwer (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Chuck Norris doesn’t get a blurb. Blurbs get a Chuck Norris. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb, he was actually more than just memes - a six-time world karate champion, multiple black belt holder, founder of Chun Kuk Do, Hollywood Walk of Fame star awardee. This checks the top of one's field box for me. Brandmeistertalk 16:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
STRONG Support; Just look at the Recent deaths list - who are those people???? No one even knows them!! Chuck was more famous than all of them combined. I understand that Wiki hates Chuck because of his political positions (opposed sex sex marriages, supported Trump), but this retaliation looks so.....pathetic?? ~2026-17850-55 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
No one is "hating" Norris based on these positions. And right now the hold up on the RD line is that Norris' article is not up to main page standards. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Chuck's article was the most viewed in entire en-wiki last two days!! This fact talks for itself. ~2026-17850-55 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Page views aren't a criterion. Welcome to ITN. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Aren't a criterion for what? To show how famous the person was?? ~2026-17850-55 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
for Main Page standards. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Page quality is a criterion. Simply views are not. Right now the article needs to be reworked and sources have to be given for a lot of things on his page. This is what decides who gets posted, not just merit or how famous a person is Jalapeño(utg) 14:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Very famous individual. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb Vital 5 article. Although not oppose Support RDWarm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on Quality one orange tag. If fixed, Support Blurb as he is a Vital 5 article. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb – I have not seen any indication that he's transformative. Being a meme does not necessarily make one ITN blurb worthy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb per others. I'm really not buying how he's notable enough for a blurb feature, whether or not his name is recognizable (see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/May 2024#(Posted) RD: Kabosu (dog) for another example of ITN's attitude towards memes). Oppose on quality--too many uncited claims for this to be posted in its current state. Departure– (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Quick comment---for those new to ITN, note that the posting of a blurb is not a foregone conclusion, and is based off of the subjective idea of "notability"--whether transformative in their field or a vitally important figure. There's a debate on whether or not fame, rather than importance, should be the deciding factor, with controversial recent decisions including Robert Redford and Connie Francis being posted while James Earl Jones and Liam Payne weren't. There isn't a subjective criteria for anyone being posted (minus, say, serving heads of state), and whether fame or sheer page views over existing featured deaths is not currently decided.
In addition, note that the criteria to post to Recent Deaths (RD, or the list of names below the main blurb stories) is simply to have an article of a minimum quality, without major uncited sections or prose errors. Any living being with a Wikipedia article is eligible for a RD entry, so long as their death is nominated and their article up to a minimum standard of quality. It's currently undecided if Norris's article meets the quality criterion, but if it is improved ahead of his death becoming stale, its posting to RD is a foregone conclusion. Note also WP:HEADCOUNT and WP:NOTAVOTE: this isn't the place to vote for the most tragic death this week, nor is it a meme page, and a joke isn't a substitute for a valid argument. Departure– (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb because he is very famous. Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, Oppose Blurb Not vitally important, but good for RD. Yakikaki (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Not quite ready. But it's only a handful of {{CN}}s in the prose and a few entries in "Distinctions, awards, and honors": one last shove to get him over the line? Support RD when fixed. Moscow Mule (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
For God's sake, make a decision already. - Support Blurb, purpose of ITN is to drive reader to sought-after articles. Chuck delivers. Fix the remaining issues and post! - Floydianτ¢ 02:08, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
There's already only a shaky-at-best consensus for blurbing, and there's still show-stopping quality issues, so a decision won't be made until the quality problems are resolved. Departure– (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Article still not ready; has multiple CN tags. SpencerT•C 04:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose blurb To say mothing of article issues: OMD, and OM was more notable as a meme than as a celebrity. -- Kicking222 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb orange tag removed, but still has a few CN's that need to be taken care of (AFAIK). Otherwise vital 5, obvious support. Jalapeño(utg) 07:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I have been able to remove one of the CN tags on the page. There are 3 CN tags left on the article but for the life of me I can't find anything. The two ShoWest Awards tags, despite these awards being mentioned on multiple actors' and directors' articles, I couldn't find a news archive or website that list any of these awards. The other tag is on a paragraph about some of his martial arts, but the paragraph is decently sized so it would be a lot to cover for one article. I hope this helps in order to pinpoint how to trim these last tags. CaptainGalaxy 12:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
I've looked at these too but they are not easy to find good sources for. The section about the martial arts styles should be moved to the talk page and built up again from whatever good sources can be found. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Is it better to just remove the awards until citations can be found mentioning them? CaptainGalaxy 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
That is generally frowned upon, although it would probably be OK to remove individual ones if no sourcing whatsoever can be found for them. Black Kite (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
The previous awards were available on their site, they list Norris as a winner in 1982. However, the site also says International BoxOffice Star 1992 Tom Cruise, which apparently contradicts what is said in our article. The 1982 award can also be verified on newspapers.com. Both awards are listed in Contemporary theatre, film and television. Volume 48: a biographical guide featuring performers, directors, writers, producers, designers, managers, choreographers, technicians, composers, executives, dancers, and critics in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and the world which is available on archive.org. Kelob2678 (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the help, I have gone ahead and added those two. CaptainGalaxy 22:12, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Blurb Wikipedia is written for the benefit of readers. Even if page views are usually not a criteria, in this case, refusal to blurb and ignoring that this was #1 in pageviews is doing a disservice to Wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-18298-57 (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD; article appears to be of sufficient quality. Regarding the blurb, I am a bit undecided. While I wouldn't call Norris "transformative" nor at the top of any particular field, it's worth considering the summation of his impacts across cinema, martial arts, and the world of memes. I think Norris is a good example of an edge case for blurbing. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD Article quality sufficient; IMO at present does not have consensus to post a blurb, but will leave the discussion open for now. SpencerT•C 05:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
(I was working on this post between the time Spencer invited additional discussion and Tone closed the nomination. With permission from Tone, I'm adding this to the discussion. Tone said I could reopen the nomination, but I don't know how to do that and we really just need a decision at this point).
Reiterating Blurb Support I posted once already, but as additional discussion has been invited, perhaps I can add more to the discussion: The debate over blurbing Chuck Norris shouldn’t hinge on his literal accomplishments--his filmography, his Nielsen ratings, or his martial arts titles. It should recognize that, while he was a mortal human, he was also more than just a man. He became one of the rare few in history to transcend the bounds of mere celebrity to become a Symbol. We need these Symbols to help us navigate the world, to remind us of the traits we value. Just as Einstein became a symbol for "Genius" and Gandhi for "Moral Courage," Chuck Norris became the global symbol for "Physical Omnipotence," one who had the ability to do the impossible. Evaluating his significance based on his actual history would be like determining the value of Notre Dame cathedral by its property tax records--it would miss the point. It might provide the monetary value of the bricks, but it would entirely miss the importance of the structure in our collective human imagination. Determining whether to blurb based on the actual Chuck Norris is insufficient; the legendary Chuck Norris also must be taken into account. And based on that, just as it would be unthinkable not to blurb the passing of a figure such as Einstein or Gandhi, it should also be unthinkable not to blurb Chuck Norris.
--Legends are a vital genre in folklore, and the legend of "Chuck Norris" has become a secular archetype of the unstoppable force. Like Davy Crockett or George Washington before him, other real people whose legends eclipsed or complemented their actual histories, Chuck Norris was bequeathed a god-like persona through an organic, grassroots mythology. Chuck Norris was a modern-day King Arthur or Paul Bunyan, a "Knight at the Gate." We need our Heroes, and when he died, the world lost the living version of its Hero, perhaps the most prominent larger-than-life figure who still possessed a real, flesh-and-blood component. To reduce this significance to "memes" is to fail to understand the place he filled in society, as further evidenced by the sheer volume of cultural processing occurring since his passing. Chuck Norris, the man, may have died. Chuck Norris, the legend, appears to be headed for a long afterlife. To fail to recognize this would constitute [edit: has constituted] a serious oversight in the credibility of In the News.Ryan Reeder (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Oppose on quality grounds and on influential grounds. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
@Lavalizard101: Anyone with a Wikipedia article is eligible to have their name listed in the Recent Deaths section of ITN if the article is good enough, as the above template shows. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't post stubs. Schwede66 00:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) King Charles III England Coast Path
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: The longest coastal footpath on Earth has opened, tracing the English coast. The article is pretty high quality, and I think this is a good opportunity to get a class or above article on ITN, while switching up what we usually post for some diversity.— Knightoftheswords 23:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is neither impactul nor international. It seems better suited for DYK. NeoGaze (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Not eligible for DYK, and ITN stories can't be opposed for not relating to multiple countries during WP:ITNCDONT. — Knightoftheswords 00:20, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Could be made eligible if promoted to GA status. Jahaza (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I am was neutral on this specific proposal. However, stories do not have to be international to be significant, and it's not a good reason to oppose. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Is there any consensus on how encyclopedic ITN should be around matters like this, in that it isn't exactly a global headline, but it is still an interesting fun fact that has happened recently. ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 06:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Above, WP:ITNDONT advises that editors should not 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.Andrew🐉(talk) 07:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
More importantly, we have WP:NOTNEWS. We are not a news website, so we should not be concerned about creating headlines. We're presenting encyclopedic articles which happen to be in the news. Or at least, that's how we should be treating the main page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Move to support - seems exactly like the type of story that is a nice addition to itn, and fits with the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 09:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This has been 18 years in the making and this was the official opening. See List of long-distance footpaths to see how impressively long this one is. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That list is staggeringly badly organised, such that it's hard to work out if the superlative claim (reported uncritically by the BBC) is actually true. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support– We need more articles like this on ITN. WP:ITNSIGNIF is not entirely clear on how to recognize the blurbability of subjects that are only really reported upon by local news outlets (BBC, Guardian, etc), but I think in those situations article and update quality can take over. These quality aspects are fine here, though not great. Subjectively, the entire English (and Welsh) coast being linked up with a footpath is very cool news. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:43, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is very much a local interest story, not even amongst the top headlines in the UK. How could editors oppose the recent Indian state name change or Uzbekistani football tournament and then support posting this? AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I think it tends to be the same people who oppose or ignore subjective significance. I wonder if 'top headlines' could be measured somehow for an update to ITNSIGNIF. Currently we need to judge by number of articles and the detail therein, but just like Wikipedia, our online sources do not have space limitations within their articles... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Note - The Indian state name change was just proposed by national cabinet if I recall correctly ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 09:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2026#(Closed) Renaming of Kerala - The name change was still just supported by national cabinet, and yet to go through Parliament, nor be implemented. A good example of this was the Australian under 16s Social Media ban, where it passed parliament in November 2024, but only got implemented December 2025, which was when it was posted to ITN ElizaofChaos ✦ she/they ✦ 09:35, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - If the article were good and the superlative claim in the blurb were true, I could support this. But the article contains numerous errors of fact, ranging from the completeness of the works to the organisation of the route. I'll try to fix some of them later. But our own article E9 European long distance path, linked to from the KCIIIECP article, describes a path which overlaps with it (along the English south coast), is described as the 'European Coastal Path', and is 9880km long, as against 4328km for the KCIIIECP. So with apologies to National Trails, it's not true. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, the article is poor. There may very well be a case for saying that the section from Berwick to Aust is the world's longest continuous coastal path, (the E9 is very fragmented) but you'd obviously need a source for that as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the National Trails website reveals that the East Anglia section (at least) isn't finished yet; there's nothing between Shotley and Mersea, for example. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Meh. In that case, this is better suited for DYK if and when the article can be expanded or made a GA, I think. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The European long distance paths aren't unbroken foot paths, they're just a bunch of loosely patched together roads and existing paths that often don't even connect to each other directly. This path meanwhile is an actual footpath (there aren't plants to link the E9 unlike the KC route). — Knightoftheswords 21:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a fair observation, but at present the KCIIIECP isn't connected either, and so can't reasonably be said to hold the record even if we do discount the European LDPs. But for the most part the KCIIIECP is also largely patched together from existing footpaths. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality and significance. The article is entirely short choppy graphs and lists, and the recent updates are not that substantial. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Question - have we ever posted one of these great trails before? Especially that aren't that long, and are not completed (or is it continuous with roadways?)? Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per all above. Local trivia, lack of general importance. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated 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.
Comment with these academic prizes it is typically only the winner(s) that are the bolded article. That's not a problem here as Faltings article is short but seems close to ready.Masem (t) 12:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree - the entire article is written in PROSELINE. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
I fixed the WP:PROSELINE issue. That was a very simple edit. For blurbing a higher quality might still be desired. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:45, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Moving the date to slightly later in the sentence is insufficient. The Career section is still five paragraphs of "in YEAR, he did this". It's poor composition, and our primary purpose here is to highlight quality. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The bold link must be to the winner, not the generic article about the prize (see WP:ITNAWARDS). I've added an altblurb that does so, and also simplifies the reasons for the win. However, that article needs work. I've just added several cn tags, but more importantly there's no prose whatsoever about the Abel Prize, or an explanation of the work that won it - the blurb provides more information on that. Needs tidying up and a proper update. Modest Geniustalk 19:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. The article sourcing has been addressed, and there's now a brief lay summary of the work that led to the prize. The article is still short and not very accessible, but it does meet our minimum requirements. Because the only opposition was on quality grounds, I'm marking this as ready. Modest Geniustalk 13:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready in the current state due to multiple CN tags. Once ready, I support the altblurb for its brevity and additional context that makes it more understandable to more readers. ~2026-17337-97 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Article still lacks prose about the Abel award. It mentions in the lede, and is listed among awards but that's not close to a sufficient update. And with the NYTimes article, we should be able to go into a tiny bit of layman's terms of why his work is important. Masem (t) 00:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality as Faltings' article contains no prose on his winning of the award. TheKip(contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Prominent businessman in Indonesia. Article is fully referenced.Yogwi21 (talk)
Support updates included in the article, which is in turn adequate for ITN. Juxlos (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: South African lawyer and United Nations official. Good quality, fully referenced.Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support Well-structured and well-sourced article about an interesting character, but the "Career" section could be fleshed out; it is dangerously close to proseline in the listing of his assignments. It would be interesting to know more about what he did in those assignments, and what impact he had. Yakikaki (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Unreferenced DoB. Schwede66 00:45, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
There are now a couple of footnotes next to his DoB in the main prose. --PFHLai (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Several refs/info added since nomination. I'm wondering if Geoffrey Haysom is his father (same second middle name, association with Durban) but can't find any sources to prove it.Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. Article quality improved. SpencerT•C 16:35, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
Kata'ib Hezbollah says that it will cease attacks in Iraq if certain conditions are met including for Israel to halt their military operations in Beirut, making it the first time an Iranian-backed militia group said it is open to ceasing attacks since the US-Israel strikes began on February 28. (Jerusalem Post)
The Foreign Ministers from Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates, met in Riyadh, issue a joint statement calling on Iran "to immediately halt its attacks". (Arab News)
Seven people are killed and three others are critically injured in an explosion and fire at a residential building in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. (NDTV)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Iranian intelligence minister killed by Israel. Article is long enough and fully sourced. Surprised this one hadn't already been nominated.QuicoleJR (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Because outside of day one, there have only been three and two of them weren't sourced enough to post anyway. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: At present the article is generally a list of positions, with limited depth. While this may be understandable for an intelligence official, there are details out there that could be added to the article. For example, the article lists him in the category "Iranian individuals subject to U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctions" but this isn't discussed anywhere in the article. SpencerT•C 17:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Sitting member of the NC State House. Article is long enough and fully sourced.QuicoleJR (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Intro states that he is known for being a politician, but the body of the article lacks information about his political career. SpencerT•C 04:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
One or both nominated events are 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.
Comment both bios lacking sources, and while short they are sufficient.Masem (t) 15:04, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as much of Bennett's bio is lacking sources. There's a handful of missing ones in Brassard's article too. TheKip(contribs) 16:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Lots of orange tags on Bennett's article. Needs work. Modest Geniustalk 18:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
There's been no improvement in the last 24 hours. Modest Geniustalk 19:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Before it goes stale. It's too significant not to be blurped.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose CN tags aplenty in both articles. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 15:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American opera singer and aerialist.Thriley (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is the stubbiest of stubs, it's nowhere near postable. Ping me if it's expanded. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is now sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) 2026 March Madness (Ongoing)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nominator's comments: Major college basketball tournament that just tipped off. Maybe worth a blurb? I don’t know how to make it both an ongoing and a ITN request, so just did ITN and added (ongoing) to the title of it.Okso1(talk,contribs)
This and the women's tourmanent are ITNR and the winner of the tournamennt will be blurbed. This fails at ongoing as no one will be writing blurbs for the 60+ games, nor are those 60+ games individual blurbs on their own. Speedy close and archive.Howard the Duck (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
There is zero chance that the beginning of the tournament will be blurbed. But I think this is worth a consideration in the Ongoing line. Natg 19 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose. IIRC, the only sporting tournaments we've ever put in ongoing are the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. A domestic student tournament certainly doesn't have that level of importance. Nominate the outcome of this tournament when it finishes instead. Modest Geniustalk 18:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The results of these tournaments are (for some reason) ITN/R, they definitely don't need to be splattered across Ongoing as well. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I'm against posting American college sports blurb in general since I don't think it was significant outsides of the US, so a blurb just for the opening of the tournament has even less going for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotKringe (talk • contribs) 20:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't think we post any internal sporting championship opening or ongoing as a general rule. Only major international events like the Olympics get that treatment. Obviously that's only established custom and practice, and I don't want to give a mistaken impression that there's a firm bar on such things - but I also see no reason to do so in this case. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose we'll post the winner by itnr but should not give undo attention to amateur/collegiate sports. Masem (t) 21:13, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Query - In what other sports do we have any ITNR contests within one nation that are neither the highest-tier league nor the major annual tournament? GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article updated Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Japanese historian and atomic bomb survivor, famous for hugging Obama in 2016. Death announced on this date. Article is long enough and fully sourced.QuicoleJR (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Short but not a stub. Sourced. Bremps... 20:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Article is fully sourced, but a bit short and could use expansion before posting.Flibirigit (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Article is too short, it needs to be more than double the current size to reach the minimum. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
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: This is the final game.–Muboshgu(talk) 02:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The quality of the article appears fair for posting. Doesn't appear to be any issues, as the article seems to be sufficiently sourced. Significance is clearly met, as Venezuela beat the United States in baseball. The baseball match additionally lies in the context of recent events with US-Venezuela relations. Notability is also met, as there is international coverage of the game. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready While most of the interviews I've seen have been to the extent of "we don't want to talk about it", the article not mentioning the geopolitical situation at all is not okay. 1brianm7 (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Good article quality and well within WP:ITN/R. --NoonIcarus (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I'm an American. My knowledge of the WBC is limited to what I skim off of WP:ITN. Your link is, I assume with 100% made-in-America I'm-not-listening-nyeah-nyeah-nyeah arrogance, 100% britsplaining clickbait. ~2026-14366-36 (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, I think most Americans(outside of baseball fans) barely even know this occurred. –DMartin (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh yeah I wasn't using that as an excuse to not post, it's ITNR and it should be. I was just making a comment on the BBC Sport article.–DMartin (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Don't get me started on what important world events average Americans "barely even know" occurred. –Muboshgu(talk) 15:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support in principle, oppose on quality for now. This is the premier national-level baseball contest in the world, and more than meets my expectations for sporting events. But even leaving aside the specific geopolitical point raised by 1brianm7, there's insufficient prose in the article, relative to tables. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support in principle but quality can be improved. I strongly object to the inclusion of content pertaining to the ongoing geopolitical tensions between the two countries as sport should be kept away from politics (the only exception is if players on the participating teams sent political messages, which isn't the case according to the reliable sources reporting on the match). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Far too little prose about the game. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb – The standard blurb should be used. The article contains prose describing the scoring of every run in the game. This item is ITN/R and the article is sufficient to meet the criteria. The geopolitical context may be added to the artcle but is not essential to this story. ---C&C(Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Article needs updating 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, aged 93. Still needs citations added, but article is strong and nearly ready.Kaiser matias (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
article needs work. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
A bit of cleanup is still needed, but this does feel very close to ready. I also checked if this could be subject to a blurb, but it doesn't currently look to be meeting ITNSIGNIF. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
We posted once the death and the succession of the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church. We may have a precedent that could be useful, but I’m not sure if it really should be, and we really ought to limit it to the Patriarch of Constantinople _-_Alsor (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Only two CN tags, and they're both only for small sentence fragments. I think this is ready to post. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I've hidden the small unsourced content. Article might be ready, nice work. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's comments: An unprecedented decision made by a football confederation, I do not believe something like this has ever happened in a major football tournament before. AFCON is WP:ITN/R but a blurb for the original winners was already posted.JehanV (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It’s unorthodox, but I think being declared victors in AFCON is blurb-worthy, whether or not it strictly counts as the IT/R Pi(Talk to me!) 23:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready – There's only one sentence about the update in the post-match section. More detail should be added. Otherwise, support on notability. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 00:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose on quality It's a highly unusual situation which is garnering widespread coverage. When or if the article is further updated, this could be blurbed. I do share Nice4What's concern about the article being insufficiently updated, however. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:16, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The Broadcasting section is orange tagged, needed additional verification. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support in principle, oppose on quality - per Flipandflopped. This is a major football tournament, similar to the Euros, and this decision is wildly unusual and making front page news outside the sports pages. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose To whatever extent sporting results are significant, they are significant because of the sport itself. Administratively reversing a result after the fact is silly on its face and certainly not significant. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The administrative decision is based on the game tho? If we post as a news story that a certain game unfolded, and then the result of that game is later overturned, that's still newsworthy, even if it's just "administrative." — Knightoftheswords 17:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I can't help thinking if this happened to the World Cup final or the Superbowl it would have posted already. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Super Bowl being overturned is "not significant". Think about that. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality--orange tagged, and a few sections are out of date. Departure– (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm looking at 2025 Africa Cup of Nations, but didn't notice there were two bolded articles. Regardless, both should be held to the scrutiny of featured content. Departure– (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Ah, someone unnecessarily bolded the tournament article - the story is only about the final, so I've changed it back. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak support on notability per above, but oppose on quality per Departure. TheKip(contribs) 16:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'd assume this is ITNR, as the competition is listed there. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I'd assume so, as this refers to the result of the competition. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose on quality Overriding the result of the finale of a continent-level sports tournament is clearly notable, but there are still too little info about the event itself. NotKringe (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: What happens if the CAS overturns the CAF appeals board's decision? Would we blurb that again? Bait30Talk 2 me pls? 19:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This decision is going to be appealed so we should wait until it is finally settled as we don't wanting to be posting it again for a third time, do we. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:01, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Given the CAS, that could literally take years. This is the unprecedented ITN story, though. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom, pretty notable. --SpectralIon 02:53, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Strange and highly unusual decision; we posted the original winner of this game so it makes sense to post the change. The article has been updated and is of sufficient quality, though I recommend the blurb uses a section link to the new material to avoid reader confusion. If CAS overturns this on appeal, I don't think we would need to post it a third time. Modest Geniustalk 11:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Marked as ready - all but one Oppose is on quality, which has been addressed. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Article needs updating 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:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced via Al Jazeera on this date.--Stunts1990 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb, de facto administer of the Iranian state, responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in protest crackdowns, including the most recent wave in January. — Knightoftheswords 23:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, oppose blurb. The blurbs of this war are mostly all covered by ongoing. No need for another one unless its an extraordinary event. TwistedAxe[contact] 23:44, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
+1.VR(Please ping on reply) 05:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose RD Unsourced bibliography. Oppose blurb, there's only one sentence that makes the claim as being the de facto leader and both of those are claims by media sources, so great stretch. Add that this is yet another death of an Iranian official in the strikes among dozens so far and it doesn't make sense to push a blurb (in contrast to the actual lead executive office). Masem (t) 00:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose RD In addition to the Bibliography, the Political career section also has sourcing issues. Leaning oppose on blurb because he wasn't the official leader of Iran, and I'm not convinced his assassination is groundbreaking enough to be posted alongside the Ongoing listing. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb While it indeed doesn’t make sense to post every single Iranian official killed, this qualifies as an extraordinary event because Larijani was the de facto leader of Iran since Ali Khamenei’s death, and arguably even earlier. He was one of the most significant figures of the Iranian regime and his assassination deserves a separate notice. John Adams 362 (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb While the new Supreme Leader seems to be a figurehead, all the commentary I saw indicated that Larijani was the most powerful politician and was actually running things. The article seems ok and confirms this, "he was widely considered to be the de facto leader of Iran". Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
There is only a couple of sources that support this and it's stuck in the lede. If this was truely the case, then there should be much more discussion about this facet in the body. Masem (t) 11:32, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Masem is mistaken. There are three sources in the lead and some discussion in the body. And there's plenty more out there as all the reliable sources seem to agree on this. For example, Britannica states plainly that he was "the de facto leader of the country". Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
It seems abundantly clear that "all the reliable sources" do not agree on this, which is why are we citing such conspicuous oddballs for the claim in the lede. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
It seems that your search function isn't working well (see below); perhaps it is stuck in a filter bubble? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb really notable on its own Yacàwotçã (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose RD Lots of unsourced material. Oppose blurb per Masem. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality Article has some sourcing issues that needs to be addressed. Support blurb He isn’t some middle-rank or average politician/military figure who was assassinated in an airstrike. He’s been described as the de facto leader of Iran since Khamenei’s assassination and his death (as stated in various news articles and in this article itself) implies that his assassination carries some ramifications about Iran’s actions in the war going forward. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Per the Jerusalem Post article cited, the "de facto leader" attribution is coming from US and Israeli intelligence, who are unreliable to say the least. Are there any reliable sources that are saying this in their own voice? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
All of them, so far as I can tell. See Britannica, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Obviously I meant secondary sources. And clearly not all of them, because I just mentioned Jerusalem Post, Al Jazeera listed as the source in the nom does not, not could I find any others (checked CNN, NYT and Reuters). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
In the interest of full fairness, The Guardian does have an analysis article where they make the claim that his killing is just as impactful as Khamenei's, if not more. I'm still not fully convinced to support a blurb because this is covered by Ongoing and not an ITN/R issue, but this is why I'm only leaning oppose instead of fully opposing. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
CNN: "the country’s de facto leader Ali Larijani also perished"
NYT: "Ali Larijani, Iran’s De Facto Political Leader, Killed by Israel"
Reuters: " Iran's most influential powerbroker"; Reuters 2: "one of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic"
I sincerely appreciate you including several examples that counter your point. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:34, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not my point. The "de facto leader" description still appears in the article's lead and some want to put it in the infobox too -- see Talk:Ali Larijani#De facto leader. It is a common description which appears in numerous sources, not just US and Israeli partisan press. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The context of this nom is that we are trying to post an additional blurb for an event already in ongoing, and the major rational is that this guy is the (lower case) supreme leader of his country. But the sources for this claim are specious- the CNN is an analysis column, the NYT qualifies it as "political" leader, and the Reuters says "one of the". You have to weigh the timidness with which this claim is being made against the default position that we don't duplicate ongoing. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
An analysis is superior to ordinary reporting as it is more considered. And a political leader is usually the most superior sort. Only the Reuters source weakens the statement a little but still uses the superlative "most" indicating that Larijani was in the top tier of Iran's complex governance.
As for the ongoing entry, that's just two words and so is easy to miss. And it provides no detail while its linked article provides too much, being tagged as {{too long}}. A proper blurb would help readers understand this important event more clearly and that's what we're here for; not to give them as little information as possible.
Nominator's comments: This is a new subatomic particle which is a heavier version of the proton in which the usual two up quarks are replaced by charm quarks.Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose all for science stories but 1) this is the 80th such particle discovered by CERN making it not very unique and 2) I'm not seeing a peer review paper backing this up (guardian is usually good yo mention if there was one) which is usually the minimum standard to make sure we arent posting off the cuff claims. Masem (t) 18:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: The really big science stories get blurbed off of preprints. Meanwhile, this is not a really big science story. And I've really beem into CERN's doings for most of my adult life. If they ever make a topped proton, now that might be blurbable. ~2026-14366-36 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Article quality is low, and article update is particularly short. Not an appropriate feature as it currently stands. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. A charm quark is more than 500 times more massive than an up quark. ~2026-28117-6 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: I'm not sold on whether the discovery is notable or not, but I am certain that the article is not of a quality that should be featured on the main page. After reading it, I am still confused about both what it is talking about and why this particular discovery would be notable. It looks like there are about 50 different particles listed in that article, but the article does not explain why they should be considered a class beyond that they have 2 non-base-state quarks. Ultimately, this category of particles looks like a garbage taxon. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The article doesn't demonstrate why the Xi-cc-plus baryon in particular is a notable discovery. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Specifically went on this page just to see another Andrew SNOW post, not disappointed. Oppose on quality and WP:TECHNICAL. ~2026-17169-64 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
This kind of comment is not constructive to civil discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Regretfully, I'll have to go with oppose here. While I like science stories, this particle is one among many. The big news were the discoveries of the standard model particles that were predicted but only then found, such as the Higgs boson and some of the heavier quarks. Also the update to the article is two-sentence long and very technical. --Tone 10:33, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose regretfully but on multiple grounds. It would be nice to feature particle physics in ITN, but a) this isn't a big deal even within that field; b) the article itself indicates that discovery of this particle has been claimed before and notes that its status is controversial; c) the article has only two sentences about the new work, which give little more information than the blurb, and its table has not been updated; d) I see no evidence that this work has been peer reviewed, there's only a press release and some slides from a conference talk, which mention a 'forthcoming' and 'in preparation' paper; e) the media coverage is more about the prospects from LHCb and future facilities, not the implications of this particular particle. Modest Geniustalk 12:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Recent event. Putting it on ITN would help with awareness and reducing stubbyness. Well sourced and covered. ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 17:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Tqq This is fundamentally antithetical to how ITN (and every other main page section) works. We don't post in the hopes of encouraging others to Template:Tq. The quality requirements must be met before posting. WP:ITNQUALITY says: Template:Tq2Left guide (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
It isn't even a stub anymore. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Over 100 casualties total. The attacks were also the first in Maiduguri in a while. However, I think the article should be expanded a bit more. I will continue to work on it. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Update: I have expanded the article even further and will still continue to work on it. Also, the number of casualties is now over 170, with the number even as high as 230. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per Bloxzge. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:17, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support after the article's expansion and per the significant death toll. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:00, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Article's been sufficiently expanded imo. TheKip(contribs) 16:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Only the 7th deadliest attack in the last year. What am I missing here? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Okay? Obviously there is going to be attacks with higher death tolls. It was a major attack in a city where they don't happen often. There was more than 170 casualties. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a very odd bit of qualification there. Major attacks are common, and attacks in this city are common, and major attacks in this city were common, but its been a little while since the last major attack in this city. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:39, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The article is very well developed. Yakikaki (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb The subject is quite famous and successful and the article is recognised as both vital and an FA. The article even has a legacy section too and so it ticks all the boxes. The only thing missing is a good picture but that's not essential. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
There are no free images of Deighton and we're unable to upload a non-free one for a few months. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
That's news to me, and most welcome. Image now uploaded. - SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Its been well established that BLP applies to at least 6 months after death, and that extends to using non-free images of recently deceased. Masem (t) 00:08, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, weak oppose blurb. Whilst it would be nice to get a Featured Article up, we generally don't post popular fiction authors - we didn't post John le Carré or Tom Clancy, for example, and Deighton was certainly not more transformative than either of those two. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, oppose blurb. Article is in good shape, but I don't think Deighton is blurb level. Modest Geniustalk 14:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD is enough. Article is fine. Grimes2 14:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, weak oppose blurb Article in good shape for RD. Article does reflect why the subject is an influential spy novelist, but the legacy section could be expanded a bit. Several obits have compared him as the most influential spy novelist since Ian Fleming. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD because the article quality is more than sufficient, being a recent FA. Oppose blurb because not everyone who is Level 5 vital deserves one, and I'm not seeing what makes Deighton stand out compared to other unblurbed authors. He's no Margaret Atwood. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, oppose blurb Don't see any quality issues. but in terms of being a major figure, while there is a legacy section, this is basically summing up how a couple of other authors identify him as an influence, far from what I'd expect for a major figure from British authors to cover. Masem (t) 00:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD, strong oppose blurb per above. A no-brainer on quality but doesn't have the international significance. Wizardman 01:38, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 05:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose blurb– Article quality is great, but I think the extend of an article update should always be more than one sentence for a death blurb. A single sentence update just isn't enough no matter how good the article and how many news outlets cover the death. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: It appears that he had a 43-year judicial career, yet the career section only highlights 2 key cases over this time. IMO falls below the minimum depth to be expected for this kind of article. SpencerT•C 04:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Ongoing Such total blackouts are common in Cuba – El Pais says they've had six in 18 months. The tottering state of their economy is more of an ongoing topic than a particular incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support While blackouts may be relatively common in Cuba, this is partly an effect of larger international politics such as the ousting of Maduro and pressure on Mexico to stop oil coming into Cuba. The blackout is one indicator that these international maneuverings warrant posting, but ongoing international tensions are also part of the significance for ITN. Ironic (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - While some blackouts are common. This is a much different and much more talked about situation here. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - if 5 of the failures were before the USA "blockade" then the USA terrorism shouldn't be in the blurb. Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
How is hatting this as drama, User:Knightoftheswords281, appropriate? Simply because you don't like my vote and noting the situation? Surely you are only creating drama (again). First - if you do stuff like this, please ping the editor you are attacking. Second - the US blockade (including of it's allies) is not only a complete violation of international law, it will kill innocent people in a peaceful nation. How you can object to something that might (or might not) imply a negative view of this I don't know. Three - nowhere did I even offer an opinion on whether this terrorism was good or bad; that would be necessary for there to be drama. Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
While I agree the block was bad, ITN (nor any place on WP) is appropriate to go into political arguments, unrelated to the specific workings of WP, that are contentious, as that is what leads to a breakdown of civil discussion. There are ways to express the sentiment you expressed in your comment without trying to claim it is terrorism, for example (you're free to hold that opinion of course, but recognizing that it is contentious and doesn't contribute too the discussion is a step to avoid this in the future.) Masem (t) 22:23, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Political arguments? How do you say that, @Masem. What political arguments? If I note that USA is cutting the Artemis budget, then that's surely also political - as would be any mention of a government decision. If we can't simply mention government actions, what can we do. I never provided any opinion on whether this USA terrorism is good or bad. As I noted elsewhere, if schoolchildren practice terrorism in a schoolyard, then is that political? I think you are misusing the word. Also, please ping me, if you are going to make I'm not sure why the drama ... so long after my neutral rejection of the blurb. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
There is no way calling the blockade "USA terrorism" can be read as anything but WP:SOAP. Then defending it by saying you didn't say whether "this USA terrorism is good or bad" is just obtuse. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom. Millions of people are impacted and this is receiving indepth coverage worldwide - e.g. CTV News, BBC, Le Monde, El Dia, etc. Once it rolls off, we can consider it for ongoing if the 2026 Cuban Crisis article is receiving daily or near-daily updates about the blackouts/blockade. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
CommentTemplate:@ITNA It’s been a few days and there has only been one (arguably WP:SOAP) oppose, so I have tagged this ready. FlipandFlopped㋡ 15:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Pull This shouldn't have been posted. Reasons include:
This is a story from 5 days ago. It's out-of-date now as power was restored to some extent after 30 hours: see CNBC, for example.
There wasn't much of a consensus.
The blurb is improper synthesis in linking two separate matters. The exact cause of the outage has not been announced by Cuba and their grid has a history of such failures, as I explained in my !vote. See Electric Choice for some analysis showing that there are several factors.
The target article only had a one sentence update and is out-of-date now as it's not being updated about the power issue.
Pull Pushing a week after power was restored? No one had even supported in 3 days. Why User:Schwede66? My first thought was, another power failure? At least update it to say it was restored last week. Nfitz (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Ironically, after all this, the power is out again. Nfitz (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be below the AFCON overturn? Power has been partially restored since. Putting this item at the top misleads our viewers. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Pull power has been partially restored and blackouts are far too common in Cuba. Furthermore, this latest failure is mentioned in just under three lines. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Pulled Sorry, wasn’t aware that this is not still ongoing. We are currently a blurb short. Schwede66 03:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
I restored a recent blurb to keep things even. Left guide (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Venezuela defeats Italy in the World Baseball Classic
Oppose - the final is today. I'm not sure why we'd ever blurb the semi-final. Mention Venezuela in the final blurb, after the competition ends, in a few hours. Nfitz (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and wait for the final. Article is not good at all, having no prose on the games. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above. TheKip(contribs) 16:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong Support on Notability, however wait - The Article is currently a stub and as the news breaks more information will become apparent, but this is definitely notable for ITN Yorked (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality as a stub. Tentative support on notability given the original blurb rolling off and the lack of an ongoing item, though one is under discussion below - if that gets posted first, I'm not sure about blurbing. TheKip(contribs) 03:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Striking my support for now - as Bremps notes, the 400+ figure is currently cited to the Taliban/government and not independently verified. TheKip(contribs) 04:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality Article is short. Also where there's smoke there's fire and certainly many have been killed. Newspapers are hedging by saying that the Taliban reported these figures, though, suggesting that there's no verification. Let's wait a bit. Bremps... 04:27, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Stubby but good enough. Ceratinly notable and it should be noted that Taliban figures of civilian casualties have been largely verified by the UN mission in Afghanistan and will likely be the case here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
@Gotitbro can you provide sources for UN verification? VR(Please ping on reply) 22:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Just getting there in size. Should it be noted who (Pakistan) conducted the airstrikes in the blurb? ✈ mike_gigstalkcontribs 13:34, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is now a decent size and both well-written and well-sourced. May be worth refining the blurb to clarify that the specific number of casualties are not known at this time, the BBC is reporting at least 100 per "forensic sources". AusLondonder (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait - the specific number of casualties (as already pointed out by AusLondonder), currently it's not independent third party verified. Like WHO said we're going to do that. Ainty Painty (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Article is at a decent length now and has more than a dozen sources. 400 fatalities in an airstrike is notable. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Strongly oppose stating the 400 number in wikivoice, as a violation of WP:NPOV. Almost all RS are very careful in attributing the 400 number to the Afghan authorities. AP says " Afghanistan accused Pakistan of killing at least 400 people" BBC News says "although this figure has yet to be confirmed"VR(Please ping on reply) 22:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
As the body of the article notes, the BBC and other ground reporters already verify upto 100 killed with multiple unifentified bodies still in morgues and others under rubble. Perhaps the blurb can be modified to not specify the exact figures claimes but high casualties are certainly the case here by all means. Gotitbro (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Admin comment I've read the above comments and the article. The BBC source quoted above is now 19 hours old and talks of "at least 100" killed. That needs to be reflected in both the article, and the blurb must also convey that there is great uncertainty about the numbers killed. In its current form, this isn't ready. Schwede66 07:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Re It is reflected in the article "The department later told the BBC that more than 100 people had been killed with some bodies injured beyond recognition." I see that an alt-blurb has been proposed which should be fine. Gotitbro (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
I appreciate that it does say that. Most readers won't get past the infobox and lead, though, and for the article to be balanced, that needs to be reflected there, too. Schwede66 08:49, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Re Added to the lede, not sure how to exactly reflect this in the infobox (maybe you can give it a shot) so left that out for now. Gotitbro (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
The UNAMA now states that 143 have been killed (likely to update its figures going ahead) and I have added this to the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose While the larger 2026 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict nominated below is notable enough to be in the recent events, the Kabul incident nomination will be giving undue weightage to Taliban official claims which has questionable reliability. The article itself is also unbalanced and quality wise yet to be there. Muneebll (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted ALT1 (slightly tweaked) after reordering the lead to make it flow better. Schwede66 02:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Note: I've amended the blurb to read: "a Pakistani airstrike", since it is of some importance to know who was doing the bombing. Sandstein 08:05, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
This appears to now be failing basic Main Page checks as IP and new editors (some likely socks, for which see Talk) appear to be disrupting the article to change a civilian attack into some sort of a 'military conflict' (with offensive "victory" et. al. to boot no less) and edit warring to keep it so. I recommend either a pull here or an ECP PP and counter to this. Template:Re Pinging for admin attention. Gotitbro (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
I’ve semi-protected the article. Schwede66 16:03, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Lean oppose Good faith nom, but I'm divided on the notability of the appointment. Notability is only met when there is international coverage by reputable sources. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Currently oppose as well. ITNSIGNIF is a bit weak, but that could be outweighted by a high quality article and a well-written, detailed update. At a single-sentence update, there's nothing really for Wikipedia to feature. Currently, the nomination does not have much going for it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose ITNSIGNIF is lacking, and as Maplestrip said, there's just not much there. TheChestertonian (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above. TheKip(contribs) 03:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, notable development since the coup we posted. I've seen worse articles posted on the MP and ITN. — Knightoftheswords 03:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support As French premierships are posted. ArionStar (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
The problem with this conflict is that its a decades-old skirmish which flares up every few years or so. Its not gaining significant news attention because its the same old, same old stuff. Masem (t) 02:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
It is however the biggest flare up since the Taliban took over so it is of some significance. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support– Article has been seeing significant updates in the past week, much moreso than other Ongoing items, and as such is an appropriate feature. See recent history of the article for this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - but will it continue? No prejudice against blurbing the new incident. Nfitz (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
That is always the WP:Crystal issue of Ongoing. All we can do is project the work our editors have done on the article into the future, and this activity has shown no particular sign of stopping just yet. I don't think short-lived ongoing features are in any way a bad thing anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
At the same time, it's been on and off for about 200 years now. Though not as long as Greece and Turkey (that's a joke). Nfitz (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - While the Iran conflict has pushed this into the background, the current events sound quite substantial... drones in Quetta and Rawalpindi two days ago? Airstrikes on Kandahar and Kabul yesterday and today? 200 dead in a "drug rehabilitation center" in Kabul (as many as at the girls' school in Southern Iran)? Sounds like an ongoing conflict to me... Khuft (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Article has been updated, and an attack killed 200 people today. JaxsonR (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Per Maplestrip. This article is being regularly updated and meets the criteria for WP:ONGOING. If it fails to continue or turns out to be "more of the same" or etc, then someone can nominate it for removal if or when that happens. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support per all above. TheKip(contribs) 03:43, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The hospital nom and arguments above should put to rest any claims of updates and coverage. Gotitbro (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support after the hospital blurb rolls off, as it is likely to get posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose in favor of the blurb, and on administrative grounds, as it inappropriate to commence consideration of the roll-off ongoing so far ahead of the fact. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Although Anglo-Western media has covered Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran much closer in the last years, this has been ongoing for a while and still in resulting in may unfortunate fatalities. Normalman101 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose for now on quality. Quality of most of the overall target article is great, but it is missing the Results section, which is arguably the most important part. Unsure about the copyright status of some images such as File:Information banner in Kazakh language.jpg and File:Constitutional Referendum banner in football.jpg, as the photographer releasing their rights under CC0 doesn't remove the underlying copyright on the banners themselves. The non-target article Constitution of Kazakhstan has two orange tags and is lacking updates. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
@Chaotic Enby The CEC RK as of writing this hasn't released preliminary results though they're supposedly planning too sometime on the 16th. The only thing we have is the preliminary turnout numbers since usually that's what they only report during election days. Though it's safe to say as we're currently waiting, the results are probably going to be around what the exit polls have shown. Once they do announce it, I or someone else hopefully will add it to the results section table. ShadZ01 (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability once results added as per Chaotic Enby. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Once updated with results and prose, support post - The bolded article still needs a results prose per Chaotic Enby. CastleFort1 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb on notability, oppose on quality per above - still orange-tagged. TheKip(contribs) 06:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose on notability and quality This is just a dictator cementing his grip on the country in a pseudo-democratic charade. The article in no way reflects this and wrongly gives the impression it was a perfectly normal democratic process. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I mean there aren't any serious recorded irregularities as far as the OSCE has to say. If anything, I've seen way more controversial elections here get promoted ITN, like the 2024 Russian presidential election. This referendum isn't even much close to that. ShadZ01 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose the blurbs saying "voters approve" as, according to the article, observers indicate that the voting figures are not reliable. It seems that the domestic media have to talk in coded language about "sour cream" but this is not well explained. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is well sourced and researched. ShadZ01 (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support now that the orange tag has been removed and that the article has a Results section. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article has had a decent overhaul relative to when Template:U and Template:U voted. I see no tags and this is a substantive article. The implementation of a new constitution also seems like an enduringly significant event, and there is evidence of in-depth global coverage. Template:@ITNA tagged ready. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Pull in no way is this article fair and balanced. The voters didn't choose anything, and the authoritarian president merely cemented their grip on power. I don't know who removed the orange tag, but concerns weren't addressed in the slightest; there is nothing about the observers' findings at all, merely lots of meaningless prose about preparations. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article appears to be ready, quality is good and sufficiently sourced. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted w/o percentage, as I can't recall seeing one on past election blurbs, though any other admin can feel free to add if they find it prudent, or there's explicit consensus. Left guide (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, but close While he is known for his coaching career, his playing career has insufficient depth of coverage in the article. He played at the Olympics, then played for a team in the 1970s. The article doesn't mention what position he played, or any teams he played for in the 1960s. SpencerT•C 04:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'm not the user who nominated this. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: There is no article for the 2026 match. I don't think this is notable enough, anyway. Elisecars727(talk)☺ 00:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, close: It doesn't even have an article. Still nowhere near notability. Every national cup competiton would need to be covered for this to be featured. Greenflipper (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready, not closing as it wouldn't accomplish anything, and leaving it open makes it easier for someone to start the article (at which point we'd have to reopen it either way). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
I still don't think it's quite notable enough Elisecars727(talk)☺ 03:24, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose There are many assc football articles that we already feature per ITNR, so individual national competitions generally are not covered. Masem (t) 02:51, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose With all due respect, the Uzbek domestic league is not at the level of domestic football/soccer leagues we post. TheKip(contribs) 06:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Confusion This seems to be a misunderstanding as the nominator makes reference Template:Tq which doesn't seem to be here. Perhaps they are thinking of Portal:Current events which one might think is run from here but actually seems to have an entirely separate process and management. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC) Template:Ec
Support. Not ITN/R but I'll still support it, never really understood why it wasn't ever in ITN/R. TwistedAxe[contact] 00:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Updated I've moved the item to 15 March, as that is when the closing ceremony happened. That said, the bolded article had its exposure. There is a good case to be made to replace that article with the next ITN item that gets posted. Thoughts on that? Schwede66 00:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - this makes no sense to me. Why is it of any interest that the games closed? I can understand posting their opening, but this seems silly. Please pull, it's not ITN/R anyway. —Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, but it would probably be better just to leave it there for now and replace it with the next blurb posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Also supporting replacing it with the next blurb. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment There's no requirement that we update blurbs, in this case for closing. There's been storms that were blurbed about making landfall that we didn't update that they dissipated.—Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting support Regardless of what we've done in the past, it is silly and misleading to have a blurb on the main page which says that the Paralympics have opened, when in fact the opposite is true and they have closed. This makes good, logical sense. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:58, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Question. Why was this removed from the box? 331dot (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
It was "retired". That's presumably as a result of the comments above but it seems irregular as I don't recall anything like this happening before. For transparency, Template:U should please post a record of the action here. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I should have noted that here. See a few lines above. Schwede66 08:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Obvious Oppose Even a cursory glance at international media shows it's still pretty much in the news. Der Spiegel just published a whole video on Russian prisoners being drafted into the war. Le Monde has a live blog at this moment, highlighting Russia's latest attack on Ukrainian cities. The Economist had an article on the impact of the war on Ukraine's real estate market. Even the points you make highlight the importance of the Russo-Ukrainian war - why would anyone report on a spat between Orban and Zelensky if it wasn't because Hungary is holding up EU support for Ukraine (again)? The covid comparison also makes no sense: the pandemic lasted less time than the war, so obviously it stayed in Ongoing for less time. Khuft (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose Six people have been killed in Ukraine *today*. Also today the European Councilextended sanctions against Russia. There are literally dozens of articles published today alone regarding the war. In your own nomination you have highlighted the ongoing coverage of different aspects of the war including the links between this war and the Iran war. I'm failing to see a credible argument to remove. AusLondonder (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Reply The information from the news articles you linked to is neither in the articles on the war nor on the timeline. I don't think finding external sources with information that isn't available on Wikipedia is a strong argument that this should be kept. A problem in providing daily updates from third-party reliable sources to articles with links on the main page, which is clearly the case here, is a good reason for removal. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The Russo-Ukrainian war is still in the news and the articles are still receiving frequent updates. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
WTAF Oppose - it remains massive news nearly every single day in major interational media. I can't comprehend why someone would nominate this. Nfitz (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose Sadly, the war is still very much ongoing, and it's not going to change soon. Trepang2 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose to fullest extent I still see pretty regular updates to this on the current events portal all the time. It has not ended. Gaismagorm(talk) 00:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: The idea that articles—even if on the main page—should be instantly updated with all relevant events is misplaced. Wikipedia is not a news site; there is inherent lag time between when sources first report on an event and when that information can be verified and added to the article. Following this, I suspect the reason why the timeline article does rely so heavily on Ukrainian and Russian sources is because they tend to report on events earlier and in more detail than the wider international media, so their use keeps the timeline more current. As for COVID-19, it was removed when the article stopped receiving regular updates; these articles continue to be regularly updated (in spite of the last "major attack" having occurred over a week ago). I fail to see which part of WP:ONGOING these articles do not meet. --Leviavery (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Several unsourced sections. If there is going to be a blurb, there should also be a better discussion in the body of why he was consdiered an influential modern day philosophers; while his studies are documented in depth, that doesn't necessarily translate as being influential. The awards suggest that too but again, awards alone don't necessarily translate. Masem (t) 14:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
As his death was just announced, let's see if the upcoming obituaries can give us fodder for a Legacy section. Khuft (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb I'd not heard of him before but he's level 4 vital and so is in good company. For comparison, note that Tony Hoare is level-5 vital and most other RDs are not vital at all.
The article failed a GA review but that was in 2006 and it seems quite respectable now. And it has a good picture that we can use.
For plain RDs we do not care at all about vital position, only that the person was notable. We also have already dismissed the automatic inclusion of vital level 4 as blurbs just recently, though that certainly points to a good possibility for a blurb, but all other factors must be met including quality which this clearly fails right on that factor alone. Masem (t) 14:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:U recently proposed that level-4 vital subjects be presumed notable enough for a blurb. The discussions rambled on at the talk page without a clear conclusion and have scrolled off now without a formal close. That's usually what happens to most suggestions there. I still think the idea has merit and level-4s usually do get blurbs. Note that Margaret Thatcher is level-4 vital too and so this guy is in the same league by that assessment. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:52, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Habermas is certainly a giant in his field, there should be no question as to if he should be blurbed or not, the V4 designation is well-warranted.
Furthermore, while I did personally withdraw both the proposals, I do see grounds for an RfC on this matter given that it garnered a lot of discussion and did not receive a formal close. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Which means there was no consensus to use Vital Article status as a measure for ITN. Masem (t) 15:39, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Which just means that it's not automatic. Editors are then free to use the VITAL assessment or not as they please. Looking at how they arrived at the assessment, I find a discussion back in 2008. What I like about their process is that Habermas is compared to others in his field. That seems more sensible than what happens here, where we assess people in isolation or by comparison with people in other fields. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Sure they *could* use it, but just like using page views or OLDMANDIES as a rational, its not associated with how we determine significant figures per RD blurb guidelines, and will become tedious to keep suggesting it. There *are* very good reasons this deserves a blurb, and it doesn't rely on vital article status. Masem (t) 21:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
RD blurb guidelines are at WP:ITNRDBLURB and they are quite sketchy. There are no precise criteria and the determination is described as sui generis. Masem's method is to look for a legacy section. Mine is to consult WP:VITAL. Others offer their personal assessment. Anything goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Indeed - Both Vital and Legacy methods were proposed and failed to gain consensus at the talk page. While I agree with Masem's larger argument, I think it best to avoid using the word "we" to describe undocumented (and thus specious) consensus. I was one of the loudest voices opposed to the Vital proposal, but there is a world of difference between what makes a valid argument and what requires posting de jure. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance/oppose on quality: certainly needs to be featured due to his prominence, but uncited statements in the article need to be addressed. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb on significance; one of the most influential philosophers of the C20/21. Oppose on quality, however. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Too much CN tags There are about 20 citation needed tags in the article. These should be resolved first before moving toward an RD or a blurb. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah I added all of those tags just now. I've added some citations to plug the leaks but many more are needed. ―Howard • 🌽33 16:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb in principle. Yes, he was arguably the greatest contemporary philosopher, so this a clear-cut case for a blurb. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb on significance but the article issues need to be sorted our first. Habermas is as good as it gets for a blurb candidate in his field. PS: The navelgazing skullduggery over internal enwiki article organizing, discussions of which serve no purpose other than tangential cruft, is only one of the reasons for Andrew's current troubles at ANI stemming from this board. Gotitbro (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
It really just needs some one or two paragraphs (if not more) to explain this rather than having the reader having to deduce this through the amount of coverage of his ideas. NYTimes gave him a long-form obit, that's usually a good place to start from, even Reuters coverage establish why he was important in post-war Germany. it should be easy to build these paragraphs, they just need to be added in addition to the CN. Masem (t) 19:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb A towering figure in 20th century philosophy and sociology. The article is being heavily edited now and will likely meet all the standards soon. Trepang2 (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I've tried to add citations to the "Life and career" section. No clue how to progress on the other parts. ―Howard • 🌽33 00:28, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a philosophy noticeboard to ask for help with those other sections? The conceptual stuff is not straightforward to summarise or organise. VampaVampa (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Update: I have attempted to add as many citations I could to the article and remove whatever was unnecessary or plagiarized. I hope it is now suitable for the front page. ―Howard • 🌽33 03:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, Howardcorn33 has done good work and the article is free of cleanup tags now. Subject matter experts such as Template:U, who specialises in raising vital philosophy topics to FA quality, are being engaged to confirm this and so we're good to go, I reckon. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. It seems I'm a little late since there are no "citation needed" tags and no major uncited passages left. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, happy that the cns are cleared, - I was afraid I had to deal with some. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support RD now. Agree that obit coverage would justify the blurb, but we should get some of that in the article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:28, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comnent while I think the article improvements look good and I can see some better assertion if his importance, the writing style discussing his contributions is very much not encyclopedic, expressing bauble active aspects of Hus school of thought as wikivoice. Its a style ive seen in academic sociology works but that does not work for WP.Masem (t) 12:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Blurb posted. There seems to be consensus for a blurb and that the original quality issues have now been addressed. Sandstein 14:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting support blurb Article in good shape and fully demonstrates why and how the subject was influential in his field. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting oppose blurb, support RD, the article is in fine shape for a blurb or RD, however I still think that there are higher requirements. He was very important and a vital article, however I still oppose almost all RD blurbs and I do not think this is an exception. Normalman101 (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment He may have been a giant in his field, but he is admittedly not well known to the general public. Does this reflect a new standard in RD blurbs? Ryan Reeder (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
No - same as always. While there are no written standards, the community has generally considered "giant in his field" a good measure. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Also blurbs are not meant for just famous or well known persons. We want to help readers broaden their horizons by offering high quality articles of recently deceased persons that were recognized as major figures in their field. Masem (t) 18:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Pull, blurbs should be reserved for cases when a standalone article on their death and funeral could be created using secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 19:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
That's not the current consensus at all. Khuft (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
It has generally been followed, and, more importantly, would stop grotesque abhorrences such as this one from disgracing the Main Page. Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting support blurb. Habermas was one of the leading philosophers in the past century. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:25, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting support blurb. An example of his influence can be inferred from the Feb 2026 Harper's "Easy Chair" column (their outside editorials). The author is bothered by a very brief four-author note posted on a German university website in November 2023, offering bare-bones support for Israel's right to exist and to defend itself post 10/7, and explicitly saying their note goes no further than that. The Harper's opinion writer is outraged that there were no updates. He singles out Habermas, and does not name the others. Why did Harper's bother to run this rather narrowly-targeted criticism? Answer: Habermas really does carry a lot of weight, and Harper's audience knows it. ~2026-14366-36 (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work The subject is assessed as vital but the article seems to have been contentious for decades. I looked into its talk page archives to establish what the neutrality issue was and found this. My impression is that this won't resolve easily. Note also that many developed nations are now worried about a significant decline in their populations but the article doesn't seem to mention that. As these are significant issues, I may probe further but don't hold your breath. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - unfortunate that this is not likely to make it because of the issue banners. - Indefensible (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work Some issues I spotted: Career section reads very proseline. Honorary doctorates, John M. Perkins Fellows & Legacy programs are uncited while the awards section only has one award cited. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready as the discography is unreferenced and there are multiple uncited statements in the Motörhead and Equipment sections. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Picture his work As discussed in past years, we should picture some of his work rather than just another mugshot. I've not found anything grand yet as that doesn't seem to be his style so consider his bus stop vineyard, for example. (pictured)Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I disagree. I feel ITN images should primarily focus on featuring the primary subject(s) of the blurb (in this case, Smiljan and the prize itself), rather than adjacent subjects. ~2026-16121-05 (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Unless it was an extremely famous building that we could expect most people to recognize, its far better to feature the person than an example of their work, as the reader can then visit that page and see any examples included there. Masem (t) 12:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
This bus stop is not by Smiljan Radić Clarke. Grimes2 17:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Good point – I've removed it. Commons doesn't seem to have his work well categorised but I did a search there and found some images of the Viña Vik vineyard, which looks more impressive. That place had multiple architects too but this picture shows an area that Radić designed. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm neutral on quality right now. Rather stubby. I think this image might also be an option to represent his architectural style? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
That image of his Serpentine Pavilion is interesting but I'm not sure it works at this size. I usually visit each year's new pavilion but missed that one, alas. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:15, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Almost ready. There are three cn tags on the article that should be addressed. Otherwise it's short and could do with more substance, but does just about meet our minimum requirements. Once the citations have been added I will support. Modest Geniustalk 12:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support 2193 characters (310 words) "readable prose size", that's enough and sourced. Grimes2 16:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support– Edits of the past two weeks are not very significant. We can feature much more actively-edited articles that are in the news. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking closer at the timeline article: it does receive daily updates, but at one or two sentences per day it's a long drip-feed, and the timeline's overall quality does not feel like something worth keeping on the main page indefinitely. I still support the removal of both. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Update cycle is not bad enough for me to support removing this war which is still actively ongoing and deserves more attention. --SpectralIon 17:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Very much in the news and updated to the current timeline. Gotitbro (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, the timeline has DAILY updates. JaxsonR (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Demonstrably false that the timeline article isn't receiving updates; it has in fact received daily updates for almost every day in March. Multi-casualty drone strikes which kill dozens of people would be independently notable blurbs if not for the fact that so many of them are occurring daily, in close proximity - hence why the Sudan War is in ongoing. The main article doing a shorter summary of the 2026 updates is also perfectly acceptable and expected. The purpose of the timeline articles for conflicts is to enable precisely that. Considered together, they are being regularly updated. FlipandFlopped㋡ 05:34, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Should we remove the war article and only have the timeline article on? No point in indefinitely featuring an article we're not updating. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:41, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose still a very active conflict as pointed out multiple times already, and the timeline article receives near-daily updates. Johnson524 07:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Timeline article has been receiving consistent updates. TheKip(contribs) 08:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Too many CNs at the moment to include. Masem (t) 03:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm going to add that while it may seem reasonable to document every single aspect of the war now, these timeline article become a terrible burden in the future. Our COVID timeline articles are far too excessive. I would much rather see these more prose-ified and built in a narrative structure, than simply be a holding ground for proseline entries. Masem (t) 11:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Generally the timeline articles get edited later on to be post-prose, or if not they're left to editors to do. Having them held that way maintains the information for others to work with; its also a great way of keeping track of what important has happened within an event. ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 12:00, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Makes sense, will be helpful and in line with the other ongoing conflicts in ITN Yorked (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Our main article is already receiving all major updates, might be a consideration if that wasn't the case but needn't unnecessarily crowd Ongoing here. Gotitbro (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Per Gotitbro. SpencerT•C 11:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, ongoing is dedicated to events that are still rapidly developing. The timeline article provides recent updates regarding the conflict for readers interested in the latest developments rather than having to wade through a general overview. I was initially neutral, since I do agree that ongoing is pretty packed as is, but the Sudanese civil war and timeline are not being regularly updated, so they can and should be removed. — Knightoftheswords 13:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Er both of those have events up to march 11, they are being updated. Masem (t) 13:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Not daily, which means (as you can see throughout the recent page histories of both pages), there are (often large) stretches of times were neither article is being concurrently updated just in the past month. As of now, info goes up to today, but there were multiple times in the past week where the timeline was several days behind. — Knightoftheswords 13:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking at histories there may be one or two days with updates but this still looks close enough to "daily" for me, as opposed to weekly. Sure, many if these are bursts of additions but they cover multiple days of events. It is far from being outdated, which for me when the gap is far closer to a week than a couple days. Masem (t) 14:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It draws consistency from the other timelines. There are issues with timelines being updated, but this is often the case when it's still a current event and as implied is not a unique case amongst timelines. It is updated relatively daily, and having a link to the timeline present on the MP would help with encouraging further development on the timeline ɴɪᴋᴏʟᴀɪᴠᴇᴋᴛᴏᴠɪᴄʜ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/ᴄᴏɴᴛʀɪʙ) 14:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait. Most CN tags have been addressed although there are still a few that need to be taken care of. I think we should wait this out a bit and see how the war develops - we should treat this similar to how we treated the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. If this war drags on for longer, then I support this. TwistedAxe[contact] 15:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now. This might be a better topic for the talk page, but it seems these dual-targeted ongoing entries were created to address a specific gap but are now becoming routine out of momentum. In particular the comment from Nikolai that consistency with the other timelines is cause of action raises my eyebrows. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support once the very few remaining CN tags are addressed. This article is Template:Tq - that's all that the policy requires. WP:ONGOING does not say anything about timelines having to avoid overlap with the main article. Expecting that seems self-defeating; if timelines are only acceptable when the main article isn't being regularly updated with all the new, pertinent information, why would the main article be eligible for ongoing at all? By definition and long-running precedent, a main article and a timeline article can overlap and coexist as ongoing items. FlipandFlopped㋡ 01:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
That's my point: the main article often isn't eligible. We're bending the standard every time we do one of these dual-targets, and we shouldn't be so cavalier about establishing a precedent. Each should be handled independently. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
Fair enough; I simply disagree, my preference is to consider them in tandem with one another, as I think that is established precedent by now. But your original comment was right, this is a gap in the current ITN criteria which the community ought to clarify by way of an update to WP:ONGOING. FlipandFlopped㋡ 03:01, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
We want to avoid rulecreep: ONGOING articles are already subject to ITNQUALITY, so it's unnecessary to say it again. We do have a history of posting dual-targets, but for specific IAR reasons, not for aesthetics as is being advocated here. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
Support in principle for consistency with other Ongoing events. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose per Gotitbro. Definitely worth revisiting if this war (unfortunately) stretches into a long-term thing, but for now, the main article is receiving enough updates by itself to render a timeline redundant. TheKip(contribs) 08:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support looks adequately updated and referenced from my quick check. RIP someone I grew up with seeing on the news. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 05:45, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Unreferenced date and place of birth. Schwede66 07:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
Support prominent leader with a well-established article. His death is also receiving a fairly significant amount of media coverage. Cheers! Johnson524 07:55, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Date of birth fails verification. What the source gives is the year of birth, but the article has day and month as well. Schwede66 04:01, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Opposelazarus taxon are routinely rediscovered every year (for example, the Tous (mammal) species that were also rediscovered this year), so there's no point of highlighting just two of the many species labelled as such. NotKringe (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
You realise that Tous is one of the two referenced in this very nomination, right? GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
But the discovery of new mammal species is rare. "The chances of finding one mammal species thought to be lost was ‘almost zero’ and finding two is ‘unprecedented’".Wi1-ch (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Ah, I just noticed it. Still, my point is that such rediscovery rarely garners attention to warrant a blurb. If it's coelacanth-level of rediscovery then I think that's definitely worth blurbing. NotKringe (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
My favorite kind of news story! The article(s) are currently very stubby, but I would be happy to support this type of blurb if the articles are improved. This makes the project feel more like an encyclopedia and less like a news website, that's for sure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose neither article shows enough length to meet quality requirements. I will say thus should be ripe for being at DYK since both are still new though will need more expansion.Masem (t) 12:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support notability but pages are stubby right now. Good science news, cute little sympathetic fauna fellas, and ITN is currently moving slowly so if it meets quality we should add it Omnifalcon (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
We dontbweaken standards for posting just because ITN is moving slowly. We can't create what news happens or weight given to what is reported, and wevare dependent on volunteer editors to nominate good items and make sure the quality is there for them. Quality is an issue here. Masem (t) 15:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance as the sort of news-related encyclopedic stuff imo we need more of, but the articles need expansion (at least not being stubs). Tbh there are lots of presumed-extinct-but-very-likely-not species on New Guinea, but it's getting headlines Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't post stubs. Schwede66 20:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for trivial. It's nice but it's not some breaking news we have to tell the entire world about. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Since when was ITN supposed to be breaking news, @Harizotoh9? Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose good faith nomination, many species are rediscovered each year in the eyes of scientists but it is nothing new, an example off the top of my head is Gasteranthus extinctus. These animals have been familiar to the local Indigenous population, it is just that the broader (Western) scientific community was not in the loop. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - Is there any precedent for posting re-discovered species? Yorked (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
I can only find this, which isn't quite the same thing and was 20 years ago. Another one in 2010 about a fish was opposed because it was only a sub-species of a species known to be extant. Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Pictures and common names needed I've added a picture to the nomination but the other picture (right) is worth considering too. These and the common names are needed to help explain what sort of creatures they are – the pygmy long-fingered possum and the ring-tailed glider. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality as stubs. Undecided on notability. TheKip(contribs) 08:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Maybe we can bracket this in with the Iran war at ongoing. But separately while a blurb's still up, don't think so. Gotitbro (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose largely per Gotitbro. TheKip(contribs) 07:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think this will be going on for very long, and even then, this is ineligible per WP:ONGOING. TwistedAxe[contact] 08:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - This is a relatively small aspect of the wider war which already features directly in one headline and indirectly in a second, and will shortly be in Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Covered by Iran war and soon will be in ongoing Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Should be part of an Iran War ongoing Nfitz (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the timeline: rumors started appearing online on the 8th of March. The source currently used in the article was published 10 March, as was the blog post that the source is also linking. Another blog post (in French) was published 9 March. —andrybak (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I can only see affirmed news reporting as early as March 10 (not just random blogs) and much more on March 11 and 12, so I would push this up to at least March 10 for nomination. Masem (t) 23:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: Seems to be an adequate summary of his life, adequately sourced. Given what a significant figure he was, one might be surprised by that one paragraph is sufficient for "[his] most significant work". But I think the right things are mentioned, and you can follow the links for details. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Reposting per Masem above. Sources are coming out, I believe it has enough to support an RD entry. - Indefensible (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment There are about 4 entries in the Awards and Honors that need sources, though given they are are based on blue link awards, this should not be hard to complete. Masem (t) 03:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Done. Apparently there are even more awards not listed, what is there is fully referenced though. - Indefensible (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Maybe mark it "selected awards"? Masem (t) 12:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think we do that for other articles, do we? Generally what is on Wiki is supposed to be encyclopedic but has no guarantee of being complete. - Indefensible (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not uncommon to see this on Wikipedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as the previously mentioned sourcing issues have been resolved. I did not spot any glaring issues with the article from a quick readthrough. I think the article is ready. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose not notable, ITN is not for those kinds of stories. May be better suited for DYK Jalapeño(utg) 16:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
To be fair, on what basis is ITN not "for these kinds of stories"? It has its own article.AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
As @Masem pointed out, ITN doesn't post those kinds of unusual stories, and the precedent on this probably won't change anytime soon. This event isn't significant enough for ITN anyway. This would probably be better suited in DYK though. Jalapeño(utg) 17:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
@Jalapeño Masem hadn't expressed a view when you made this comment and their subsequent comment is actually saying wait. So I'm unclear what you're talking about. AusLondonder (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
See his statement in the section "German fireball". Jalapeño(utg) 18:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
the fireball seems like basically a one and done event with no death or damage we know of, barring any discoveries from analysus of the residual. this is still a possible developing story that might impact relations between AU and Iran, but too doon to tell. its definitely not a curiousity as the german fureball waa. Masem (t) 20:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, receiving sustained coverage from multiple WP:RS sources, rather unprecedented situation. — Knightoftheswords 16:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait not ckear yet how much of an international relationships issue this will be particuoar with the war dominating coverage. Masem (t) 17:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Is that relevant to us as Wikipedia? Our purpose is to highlight quality articles that readers might be interested in. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Unsure, scale of significance unclear The article is fine in quality, and it does have some notability in reputable sources and has some separation from the Iran war. What's unclear is the scale of significance. Is this a minor diplomatic incident or is it a major international incident? CastleFort1 (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
How is the difference between a major incident and a minor one determined? Hawkeye7(discuss) 19:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
it sometimes takes days to weeks to be certain, but id then nk things like evicting embassies or the like to be at the starting point. Masem (t) 20:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a minor knock-on effect of the ongoing war, which is already posted as a blurb. While it's clearly momentous for the 8 women who have claimed asylum (calling that a 'defection' is a bit odd), I can't see any broader significance or implications. Modest Geniustalk 19:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Note on defection: I think its part of a cold war-ism about 'defecting' to the west Yorked (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Article looks like WP:NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. As in, breathless over detail about a recent event, when it should be integrated into a previous article on either the tournament or Iranian sports. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, Good faith nom, but I feel this is too tied to the war, and since we already have a blurb on that, I feel this is already covered by that blurb, similar to the "covered by ongoing" reasoning for ongoing events. ~2026-15314-17 (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Cannot blurb every insignificant happening related to the war. Gotitbro (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a source backing up that this is insignificant? Where does that idea come from? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support (also, maybe wait a little so the story develops a bit) - Quite significant act of protest from an Iranian group, here in Australia we've seen a lot of coverage, and has been covered by multiple Wikipedia:RS's. Yorked (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Covered by major international RSes, and significant in the Iran-Australia relationship. It has more ramifications than just another incident in the war, and there is more to unfold, no doubt. I'd give it another day, perhaps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, seems pretty minor in the context of global repercussions relating to Iran et al. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Do you have a citation to back that up? I've not been able to find any sources suggesting this is one of many examples of these types of stories. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
A citation for what, that there are several global repercussions? Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Any reliable source claiming that this is a minor thing. I can accept not posting something as "trivial" if that's somehow a common statement by sources about it, even if the subject otherwise meets WP:ITNSIGNIF. But I've only seen news articles talk about this as a serious and important subject, going into significant depth about these events. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Sources won't state something is insignificant in the grand scheme of a war, judging if something is worth posting in ITN comes down to Wikipedia guidelines and editors' judgement of significance, asking for a source is bizarre.
Oppose as covered under the main blurb. TheKip(contribs) 07:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support– I believe blurbing this article would best fit WP:ITNPURPOSE. It is a high-quality well-written article about a subject that thoroughly meets WP:ITNSIGNIF (as a quick Google News search confirms; BBC, ABC, Al Jazeera, NYC, Reuters, the works). The only concern is that this is too closely tied to the Ongoing item, but this article isn't even linked at 2026 Iran war. Our readers would not be able to find this article through the front page, and as such I don't believe this is a functional argument against posting this article. We would simply be failing to highlight quality work, show ourselves as a dynamic resource, or help readers navigate to an article they might be interested in. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Covered by Iran war which will soon be ongoing. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - This is a relatively small aspect of the wider war which already features directly in one headline and indirectly in a second, and will shortly be in Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Should be part of Iran war ongoing Nfitz (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Covered as part of the Iran war or its just simply "country grants asylum". The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Everybody knows there's an ongoing war, which is covered in great detail by most large outlets in the world as well as Wikipedia, and is in a way now stale news, and the number of readers of the main article are dropping every day. This item is exactly the kind of incident that brings the war home in the most unlikely of places and makes for interesting reading. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I read yesterday that among other reasons, fears of the team seeking asylum is causing Iran to pull out of the World Cup . There may be more here but right now still seems somewhat small. Masem (t) 11:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Nowhere near notable for ITN. TwistedAxe[contact] 15:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and time to close very minor part of a major conflict, no consensus will be reached. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per GenevieveDEon, Modest Genius, and others. Covered by ongoing. I would close this per WP:SNOW, but I am cognizant this is a sensitive topic area and there are some support !votes, so will opt against a NAC. FlipandFlopped㋡ 01:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment following up on Template:U’s comment above regarding the World Cup, it appears that Iran is indeed withdrawing from the World Cup this summer, the official reason is that all of their games will be played in the US and of course the US is currently bombing them.
Almost ready, First paragraph in the Later years section is unreferenced. Also spotted an unreferenced statement in the second paragraph. Article looks good otherwise. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced sentences until sourcing can be found. Someone had also added an unsourced sentence about her being the mystery guest on "What's My Line" in 1970 which I have removed as I could not find any soure for this. Will continue searching today. Cbl62 (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
All fixed now. Still no source for What's My Line? appearance, so that's been removed. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is now sufficient. Marking as ready. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and close Not notable in the slightest. Jalapeño(utg) 09:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose -- I wouldn't phrase it as harshly as Jalapeño; I love this story and found it genuinely interesting. But this isn't ITN material (for lack of notability). Renerpho (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, close and TROUT Andrew, should know very well ITN is not for stories like this. Masem (t) 11:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I really don't want to start an argument. Blaming the nominator as if this was a frivolous nomination isn't called for though. Having an idea for an unusual news story is nice, and shouting this down only leads to less diversity in the proposals we can expect. Vote oppose, fine. Close it early, okay, since there's little chance it will pass. But don't blame the nominator. Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
ITN doesnt really doesn't do "unusual" stories, we've long established thats better for DYK where the purpose is to have interesting hooks to new or expanded articles . Abdrew is not a newcomer here and knows this very well, and along with several similar candidates that they should know likely fail significance, and part of recent POINTy behavior. Masem (t) 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Very cool, and might meet ITNSIGNIF quickly googling it. However, the article is a stub, so it's not suitable for a feature yet. Not sure what other editors mean with ITN not being for "stories like this." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not a particularly unusual event. Impacts like this happen maybe once or twice per year. The one aspect that is genuinely unusual is that it hit and damaged a house, but the blurb doesn't mention that. Maybe an alternative blurb that does may get more support, I don't know. Renerpho (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
replying as article's creator; besides what Template:U mentioned, there is a chance that this meteorite could become notable if lab analysis of the fragments turns up anything interesting/notable. however, on top of being WP:CRYSTAL territory, analysis will probably take a few weeks, and given that it seems like an ordinary chondrite i wouldn't get my hopes up. ArkHyenawoop! (she/they/it) 13:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think that kind of analysis of a subject's significance is helpful for us. We shouldn't editorialize and should just follow WP:ITNSIGNIF. We can't decide whether or not it hitting a house is a reason we should blurb this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
How does this meet ITNSIGNIF? A random meteor striking the Earth and causing minimal damage is not significant in the slightest. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This seems to have been a fairly large fireball, but not abnormally so. There are thousands of fireballs reported every year. This one was seen by more people than usual but that's about it. One damaged roof is not sufficient impact for ITN - this isn't another Chelyabinsk meteor. The media coverage is brief and our article covers most of the available material, but is still only one paragraph long. Take this to DYK instead. Modest Geniustalk 11:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on both quality and significance. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose and snow close due to lack of quality/significance and a clear consensus forming on not posting. ~2026-15456-55 (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose besides being relatively insignificant, the article is barely above the level of a stub. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. Very significant personality in the Watergate affair, his testimony was the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency. Article is well written and well sourced.
Article needs work, wait, there's a lot of red links and the Singing tab of the article looks weird. I'll try to help it. RoyalSilver 17:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for multiple reasons: article is poorly sourced, poorly written, and not notable. All references are Thai-language, which isn't necessarily disqualifying but also means that this article would fare better on the Thai Wikipedia. No point in attempting to improve article, as there are almost no good sources that will help. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 19:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I expect that editors who speak both English and Thai can help us with that. This is a very odd !vote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
en.wiki does not discriminate topics jusy because the sourcing may only be in a fireign language. but it dies nean we should look to that version of Wikipedia to help build oit the en.wiki version. Masem (t) 22:25, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Thai sources are fine per WP:NONENG policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Poorly written (grammar, syntax, odd capitalisation, etc.), and numerous red links. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
This should be an update to the blurb, addressing the issue below. "In the Iran war, Mojtaba Khamenei is elected Supreme Leader following the death of his father in U.S./Israel strikes." Masem (t) 21:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
wait orange tag and only one sentence on his appointment. Updated now and locked. Support combined blurb as an updarte and bump.Psephguru (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support when ready - Though, keep it as a separate blurb from the current iran war one. Considering how the current nomination for making the Iran war ongoing proves how heavily people want the blurb to just roll off already so they can place it in ongoing and also with complaints of how complicated the Iran war blurb seems to be I'd rather have this be separate. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
weak support as not much has been mentioned in the Appointment sec. but notable on coverage and relevance due to the ongoing war in Iran and the Middle East. I'd suggest to separate Iran war's article in 'ongoing' per my reply below. ACMehta (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support altblurb - Sufficiently ready for ITN/R. Oppose combining. This is independently notable and ITN worthy blurb. ---C&C(Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support new blurb, oppose retrofitting into existing blurb. This event is sufficiently independent and notable to warrant its own blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Its the same larger event, we don't post multiple blurbs for that reason. That said, I don't see a problem with resetting the timer for an updated blurb and making this the most recent (as of now) Masem (t) 00:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I do not see it that way. The ascension of a new head of state warrants its own post. We do not have to wait for this to roll off too to add the war to ongoing. The olympics is a nice spacer between. ---C&C(Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support its own blurb. Per above, this is its own event, I don't support combining it with the strikes and death of Khamenei blurb. Just one thing though, the BLP should not be linked, only the election. So alt blurb 2 above. See the election of Donald Trump for similar case where Trump himself is not bolded. —Amakuru (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose separate blurb, they should be combined somehow. Both events are directly connected. - Indefensible (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Separate blurb Can't just keep stuffing that up. The longest serving leader in the Middle East replaced by a successor, as notable as they come. Gotitbro (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Separate blurb, but shift the reference to his father to this blurb from the general war blurb. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support split blurb as described by 331dot. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Split Blurb per above TheFellaVB (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted as a separate blurb, with the original Iran war blurb adjusted accordingly. Schwede66 09:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Hi Template:Ping please unbold Mojtaba Khamenei per my comment above. The election itself is the ITN/R event, and in general we don't bold the individual too... See Macron and Trump for precedents. Cheers —Amakuru (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Done. Sorry, must not have read the above properly. Schwede66 11:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
@Schwede66 please remove the image, as it's currently being deleted on Commons on basis not only of its copyright but also AI generation suspicions. ~2026-15099-19 (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
That image is being used by Tasnim which seems reasonably official. Anyway, there are plenty of other images such as his article's current lead image. (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Re The blurb for Mojataba does not make it clear that his father was killed in the same US/Israeli strikes listed separately. Need to add this to the assassination bit. Gotitbro (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Please make a specific phrasing suggestion that editors can discuss. Schwede66 17:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
A suggestion for picture: ArionStar (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Re Since we already have a blurb for the strikes, I believe merely appending "in the strikes on Iran" should do the trick. Gotitbro (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
What do others think? Schwede66 05:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support but needs work - The blurb should read "India defeats New Zealand by 96 runs to win the Men's T20 World Cup and successfully defend their title." Otherwise the article meets WP:ITNCRIT. woaharang (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I don't think we generally report score details in sports blurbs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I believe we have a standard sports blurb style just to avoid that sort of thing wrt score and to get around ENGVAR problems. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I've added the standard blurb as ALT2. Vestrian24Bio 02:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
There is an empty "Aftermath" section. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support but change the blurb and hide the score part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-14896-83 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality due to empty "Aftermath" section and extremely sparse prose on the match itself. TheKip(contribs) 20:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability but only after the 'Aftermath' section is completed. The T20 World Cup is a prominent International Cricket event with the top 20 ranked nations participating based on rankings and continental/regional qualifications and has recieved coverage from multiple revered international media sources too like the Reuters, BBC, ToI, Al Jazeera etc. ACMehta (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. No prose write up on the match, and aftermath empty. Also only the final should be bolded, not the tournament itself. —Amakuru (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
No there isn't, the 'New Zealand innings' and 'India innings' sections are empty. Modest Geniustalk 17:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment. The sport must be mentioned by name. Many lay readers will not know what sport it is. As such, I would only support altblurb 2. ~2026-76480-5 (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work such as a good picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready. There's no prose summary of the match, those are empty sections. They need a full paragraph of referenced prose explaining what happened in each innings. If/when that has been addressed, alt2 follows our standard blurb format, so use that. Modest Geniustalk 17:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I've added an image of the man of the match. Modest Geniustalk 17:53, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
There's now a paragraph on each innings, but they're completely unreferenced. Fix that and then this could be posted. Modest Geniustalk 19:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. There are now references for the innings summaries. I've tidied up the prose and the rest of the article seems in good enough shape. Marking ready and pinging Template:@ITNA. Modest Geniustalk 11:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work The timeline hasn't been updated since 5 March. More generally it seems that there's still bad blood but that both sides are not going all out because they have plenty of other headaches. So, it's still a tit-for-tat limited conflict. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support but needs work Timeline not updated. Squalwer (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now Timeline not regularly updated at present. SpencerT•C 17:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - literally no references in the nomination! Nfitz (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose until the current blurb rolls off + the timeline hasn't been updated in three days. TheKip(contribs) 20:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per above as the timeline hasn't been updated since some days and it's a less intense and stalemate-ish conflict for now (unlike the one in Iran and ME) nearby. ACMehta (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Becoming dormant, the article only covers up until 6 March (six days ago). Not being updated with enough frequency for the main page. FlipandFlopped㋡ 01:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, A large majority of the concerns have already been addresd, The Conflict covers information detailed till yesterday 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose article quality is not sufficient for posting on the main page. But also this does not seem to meet our significance requirements either. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting support Per Brazilian precedent (supporting the addition of "more than 4,800 others displaced" too). ArionStar (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
There's no "Brazilian precedent", there's a far greater number of blurbs that follow the usual practice of just reporting the deaths. Stephen 02:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Unusual subsections, and even after reading the article the reader does not really have clear picture of her biography. Needs major re-ordering and re-writing to a more reader-friendly and chronological article. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support An interesting article. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Outstanding Cn tags.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment I have fixed the citation issues. Thriley (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This might help with reader navigation as the blurb is piping the article name currently. And it looks like the conflict is going to be ongoing for some time. Meanwhile the blurb is under active discussion and amendment at WP:ERRORS and elsewhere. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose only on the basis that while the current blurb is present, it is not appropriate to include it in ongoing. Once the blurb rolls off, obviously it will likely be appropriate for ongoing, but we have a clear link to the page in the box, we don't need to duplicate it right now. Masem (t) 00:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
If the concern that readers will not recognize the text in the blurb to the article, then the blurb can be rewritten to be like "A war in Iran breaks out following strikes by Israel and the U.S., killing Ali Khamenei and other senior officials." Masem (t) 01:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support because this is a clearer link to the conflict than the bloated blurb and ITN blurbs are moving slowly right now Omnifalcon (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose In favor of rewording current blurb; Ongoing should not duplicate existing blurbs. SpencerT•C 03:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support It seems odd to me that WP:ONGOING, as it is currently phrased, allows for a simultaneous blurb/ongoing item for Template:Tq, but not for the reverse situation (the commencement of a war). In any event, ongoing items regularly coexist with blurbs about that same topic in situations where there has been a significant development in an ongoing event. The strange exception to that for blurbs which "commence" the ongoing item (like an opening ceremony or a war declaration) seems to lack a strong logical basis and creates unnecessary confusion. I struggle to see the benefit of it. In this case, others above have made strong arguments that it is resulting in unnecessary confusion for readers. Calls for an application of WP:IAR. FlipandFlopped㋡ 05:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The current blurb isn't going to be up forever, clearly makes sense to add the conflict to ongoing. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The breadth of the current war has advanced beyond what the blurb, already excessively wordy, can convey has happened in the past week; it would be unreasonable to keep grafting on new events to the existing blurb given the strikes against the Ayatollah and other high-ranking Iranian figures on 28 February 2026 are not currently in the news anywhere near as much as the escalating consequences of those strikes. News coverage has moved on to the wider ramifications of the conflict beyond Iran, including more recent events that have taken place in Cyprus, Sri Lanka, and all across the Middle East. ITN should give attention to the breadth of the article as the war progresses, not just the strikes on the Ayatollah causing something afterwards. Oppius Brutus 06:04, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - The war has expanded beyond the original blurb. Indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
I would also support this article being in Ongoing. BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, we can remove the blurb if it's necessary to meet Wikipedia policies. Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, the blurb focuses on the assassination of Iran's leader, in itself a newsworthy event. In response, Iran attacked its neighbors sparking a war. That war should be listed in ongoing. The blurb should link only Assassination of Ali Khamenei. The "sparks wider conflict" can be deleted from the blurb and moved to ongoing. I don't care what the process rules say. The ITN box looks broken as it currently stands. JehochmanTalk 11:43, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. The arguments of other supporters have swayed me - the war has so many facets by now that the blurb (which focuses on Khamenei, and should remain so) can't realistically cover all the details. Ongoing therefore makes sense. Khuft (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support In favor of rewording the blurb. ArionStar (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
[s]Oppose[/s] - literally at the top of the blurbs. Support rewording the blurb. Nfitz (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC) My oppose is stale. Nfitz (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose until the existing blurb rolls off. TheKip(contribs) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
To clarify, the war blurb rather than the supreme leader blurb. TheKip(contribs) 07:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Now that Iran has selected a new Supreme Leader, we can update the blurb with that but lead in with "In the Iran War...". See the newer nomination (above) for that entry. Masem (t) 21:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
This blurb has been tortured into fitting half a dozen stories within it, I think the existing blurb should not be updated with the appointment of Mojtaba Khameini Omnifalcon (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The Iran war has moved on way too much than the old but current blurb. ACMehta (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support there's quite a lot of updates happening with the war, unless the blurb is reworked to a full paragraph, it just won't cover it all. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose – Wait until the blurb rolls off and then add to ongoing. We don't remove blurbs. If there is something that overshadows the US and Israel starting a war, I have yet to see it nominated. ---C&C(Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Until Iran war blurb rolls off. It's been a precedent to wait until a blurb rolls off until we put it into ongoing and I don't see any reason to break it right now. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait until the current blurb rolls off per others above. ~2026-15018-42 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Wait until current blurb rolls off. We literally already have two blurbs relating to the actual war blurbed, if the war keeps going for longer (e.g. when the two blurbs roll off), revisit idea. TwistedAxe[contact] 11:20, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I don't understand the support argument on a mechanical level: a blurb is more prestigious than ongoing. It commands more space higher on the page, and contains more detail. Ongoing is the little brother of the blurb; this proposal is a demotion. The event qualifies for blurb based on the start date. It clearly qualifies for ongoing once it rolls off, but there is no reason to push it. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose/Wait Current blurb now mentions the war, we can let it roll off and put this in ongoing.
The current blurb is no longer mentioning the war. ~2026-14977-84 (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
"Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing senior officials, and sparking a wider war." - this pretty clearly mentions the war, and it is this blurb whose departure from ITN should trigger the addition to Ongoing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought the "election" blurb was an update to the original one, however the original one is still there but rephrased. ~2026-14977-84 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support adding this, as it is clearly major international news, provided that it is still happening when the blurb for the outbreak of war (not the one for the election of the new Supreme Leader) rolls off the main ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as it has expanded past the original blurb Scooglers (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose for now since the war blurb is still in the ITN box. When it rolls off, I’ll support an Ongoing item. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 08:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait til the original blurb rolls off, if it's still the literal one and only news story being run on every front page as it has been since the beginning of March, then yes, we should add it to ongoing. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait, then Support This has been ongoing for some time now, and there are no signs it is ramping down, however until the blurb rolls off it should not be included. Don't forget to include the timeline, like the other articles included in Ongoing.
Support The war is escalating day by day and is the main thing going on in the world right now. We look a bit silly not including it, as the average reader will not know our internal processes. I kind of want to invoke IAR; news elsewhere is moving slowly and the blurb for the war (which still focuses only on the initial attack) is likely to stay up for days. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 16:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Its in the ITN box already clearly linked in a blurb, we clearly acknowledge it. Its silly to include it at ongoing at this stage but cause it implies our readers are only looking at ongoing when they look at the ITN box. Masem (t) 16:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The wider war is clearly highlighted in the relevant headline, which is also currently the bottom one in the list. As soon as something else - such as the Nepalese election - is posted, it will drop off and this nomination will become ripe (and probably be posted). There's no need for IAR - the rules (and common practice) are, in this case, doing their job. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
We currently have five blurbs, @GenevieveDEon. Often we have four, especially with more ongoings. I think we should add to ongoing now, and remove the fifth blurb at the same time. Nfitz (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - now that the current blurb is number 5 on the list. With a third ongoing item, that should expand to 2 rows, and we should limit the blurbs to four. Nfitz (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted The blurb has just fallen off, hence it's now time for this to go to ongoing. Schwede66 20:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The target article is mainly about some murders back in 2002. Putting this in RD would be too much of an Easter egg. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Reply May I suggest basing your comments on a correct interpretation of policy and guideline? Thank you. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
It's a practical matter. If you put Soham murders into RD then it's misleading because they happened over 20 years ago and so are not recent. If you pipe it as Ian Huntley then it's an Easter egg as it's not a regular biographical article and contains much other sordid material plus BLP material about other people such as Maxine Carr. Which of these options is proposed? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
As I've already mentioned, we posted Ian Brady to RD without his own articles, by piping it to Moors murders. This is not an EASTEREGG issue. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I saw what you did there with Hindley (who died in 2002 before ITN and RD existed). The Brady case was more complex than this as he was nominated for a blurb and so the RD was a fallback from that. And the Moors murders is a former featured article by Template:U so there's a lot of baggage associated with that set of topics. Huntley doesn't have the same level of notoriety and name-recognition IMO and so I still reckon it's an egg. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I said (re: notoriety and name recognition) seven hours ago, but the EASTEREGG and article quality stuff isn't relevant here. Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
The EASTEREGG guidelines are especially relevant here because there's no context to warn the reader that they will be dropped into the middle of an article about sordid murders. Note also that there's a better account of the death at Anthony Russell (murderer)#Prison attack on Ian Huntley. It's odd that there's a separate article for one murderer but not the other. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:51, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Because someone created it yesterday. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
That was a blurb which provided some context and so prepared the reader. An unexplained link does not. I find that we have this covered in multiple places including: WP:EASTEREGG and MOS:EASTEREGG. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak Support We have RD'd murderers who don't have a separate bio before using their crime article (we featured both Ian Brady and Hindley under Moors murders) but I'm not completely convinced that, notorious in the UK as Huntley may have been, that he rises to this level. YMMV, obviously. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - Sourced and seems ready. Was one of Britain’s most notorious killers. BabbaQ (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose - RD criteria is not met. There is no stand-alone article about Ian Huntley. Mjroots (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Fortuna is right. Especially in this category of articles. We have earlier posted deaths without stand alone articles.BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
That coverage is nowhere near "substantial" - one subsection of an article with seven sections. Mjroots (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
The entire article is about the life of Huntley.BabbaQ (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per Fortuna. Article is in good shape. It’s invidious to have a league table of murderers but he’s one of the most notorious in the United Kingdom and is second only to the Iran War in coverage today. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
PullWP:ITNRD requires Template:Tqq; the link is about murders and is not a biography. For example, this has precluded "Killing of ..." pages and the like from being posted on RD (example).—Bagumba (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Really don't see what the problem is here - the Soham murders article contains a complete biography of Huntley, easily satisfying the RD standards. Pawnkingthree (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
With so much of the article about Huntley, I don't understand why there is not a separate biographical article about him, as it seems like too much detail in the murders article. Natg 19 (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Much like the far more notorious Moors murders where a discussion decided this, I suspect that was a deliberate plan. I actually don't know why people keep creating separate articles for murderers when by their very nature 95% of them are going to be WP:BLP1E. Ironically someone has now created an article for the murderer who didn't have one before he killed Huntley. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Pull Consensus did not exist for posting and does not exist now. I suspect the arguments opposed were disregarded as invalid, which is improper as the presumption of importance does not apply to RDs without a standalone article. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Keep. The section Soham_murders#Ian_Huntley is a biography of Huntley, of sufficient quality to post in RD, and the section Soham_murders#Death has been updated with the latest events. That's sufficient to post. The RD section was changed years ago to post everyone who qualifies, without subjective judgements about their importance or pleasantness. I don't particularly agree with that policy, but it's the one we have in place. This article meets it. Modest Geniustalk 14:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Post-posting support Per Modest Genius. The biographical subsection at Soham_murders#Ian_Huntley is enough to push it over the line. For the record, someone can be notable enough to pass WP:N but might not still have their own article for practical or readability reasons - see e.g. WP:NOPAGE. This individual has a biography on Wikipedia, but we've just chosen to include it as a subsection of another article as opposed to a standalone. This is the type of situation WP:RD contemplates and allows for. FlipandFlopped㋡ 01:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Interesting article with a good picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Discography and filmography needs more sourcing. Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready several statements unsourced, support once fixed. ~2026-15018-42 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Go FISH "And it's one, two, three, what are we waiting for?" (props to Template:U for having cleared the worst of the tag-bombing). Andrew🐉(talk) 17:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support I've been working on fact-checking and finding sources for this article for a few days, and it's in much better shape now with everyone's efforts since Country Joe died (damn!). I'm still going over it—I work in haphazard fashion, as I find interesting bits along the way and get sidetracked by sources with info not really usable here, but fascinating nonetheless, and I just have to read it. So it takes five times as long to do the "fact-checking and finding sources", but I get there eventually, with a little help from my friends.;-) Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD Referencing issues resolved, nice work. SpencerT•C 02:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work Lots of predictions with phrases like "will be" and "are expected". And this should be an ongoing item while it's running. The opening ceremony article seems weak and there were only 45 athletes there due to a boycott and logistical issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Leave opening ceremony article unbolded The main 2026 Winter Paralympics article should be the bolded focus. CastleFort1 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Like the main Olympics, the opening ceremony is the ITNR item, we'll put the event for ongoing otherwise. Masem (t) 02:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support blurb 1. The Paralympics are a huge event, the article is well sourced. Guz13 (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong support The Opening Ceremony has happened (live). We blurb/ongoing this every time and it has high global notability like the Olympics. -TenorTwelve (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Note that this item is ITN/R, so !votes should focus on quality as the article is automatically considered important enough to post. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 02:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
The tense isues that I highlighted above don't seem to have been touched. And Schwede66 is himself tagging the main article with Template:Tl. With all these quality issues, how is this ready? Note also that the posted blurb is erroneous and so I've reported it at WP:ERRORS. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:53, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Feel free to read WP:ITNQUALITY, where it states: "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article". Schwede66 02:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) European navies mobilise to protect Cyprus
Support on significance This is a widening of the conflict beyond the Middle East. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose part of the Iran conflict. Masem (t) 12:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance, wait on quality Support good faith nomination in principle, but it would be worth specifying in the article and blurb whether the drones were sent by Iran or Hezbollah when we have access to reliable sources naming the party responsible. The news coverage at present is ambiguous and the blurb could be interpreted as if the drones attacked Cyprus on their own. This is especially the case here given the article is titled 'Iranian strikes on Akrotiri and Dhekelia', but the first line of the article contradicts that by stating 'either Iran or its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah' was responsible). Oppius Brutus 12:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I think all developments should be contained to one blurb. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Why do you think this please? The current blurb reads:Template:Tqbbut this is an event from a week ago which doesn't even hint at an ongoing and widening conflict. Isn't it our job to to be more up-to-date and informative? Andrew🐉(talk) 13:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Because otherwise every news item would be Iran. Including Issues in Cyprus, the attack off Sri Lanka and the closing of the straight of Homuz. When this ends up in ongoing it'll all be in there.
I'm no 100% opposed to thinks making it out of ongoing into the news but it needs to be a high barrier. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Cyprus is not Iran. Sri Lanka is not Iran. The events in those places are in the news and our current blurbs don't say anything about them. What we are blurbing are other places like Brazil and Bolivia but those stories are not in the news now because they happened a week ago and there isn't continuing coverage. The Salmon of Ignorance doesn't explain his preference for keeping ITN stale by shutting out fresh news. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
It's literally the same war as the current top blurb. Suggest a modification to that blurb if this is so significant. I'm also curious in how the French, Dutch and Spanish navies have been in conflict with the British navy this century or even last (let alone the relevance). Have you forgotten Suez ... I think there may have been other joint UK/France naval operations last century </sarcasm>. I feel you are more here to play soldiers than ITN. Nfitz (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, this is covered by the blurb and will be covered by ongoing once it rolls off. They also didn't strike the country of Cyprus, but a British military base (a British overseas territory), presenting this as against Cyprus is wrong Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
It's not rolling though, is it? The current blurb has been stuck without moving for a week now and still presents the matter as specific strikes rather than an ongoing conflict. As for Cyprus, see Anger...Andrew🐉(talk) 13:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Rather than nominating sensationalist headlines like ITN's a news ticker (let's be honest, it is atm), maybe try something actually educational or encyclopedic? Like looking through papers/magazines known for high quality analysis that can identify big stories of the kind we don't usually post, there's the Financial Times, Africa Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, National Geographic, New Scientist, Der Spiegel etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I try to use good sources and especially like The Economist but it's a weekly while other periodicals such as National Geographic are monthly. The trouble is that ITN works on a daily schedule and anything that's a week old will be dismissed as stale. I quite agree that ITN should take a more considered view and recently suggested a brainstorming/workshop process for working up stories which require a deeper dive. The usual suspects rushed to oppose that like they oppose any and every attempt to improve ITN. So we have to work with ITN as it is, not as we might like it to be. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
The problem editors appear to have had there was that those kinds of stories are too complex for a blurb, and they develop gradually rather than one big moment. ITN can only really cover the 'big moments' because of the nature of blurbing. It's also become habit and convention to oppose and snow close your noms, I think they're often an aspect of another story, rather than the meta stuff people are looking for. Re blurbs, if a blurb can show significance, ie. how it affects people's lives, the impact on international politics etc., maybe some will sneak through:) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 14:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I found this story when browsing Portal:Current events/2026 March 5 where I was impressed that the French were sending a carrier to Cyprus while the RN was still getting up steam. Those portal pages are listed every day at ITN but no-one ever refers to them. I suppose that's because they are quite straightforward and there's no arguing. Editors mainly seem to come to ITN for the drama but that's dysfunctional and is what stops it getting much done. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
"Editors mainly seem to come to ITN for drama" - the same time as writing a ridiculous polemical statement like "It's ironic to see the French, Netherland and Spanish navies acting so firmly in this, given their history of conflict with the Royal Navy." when proposing this blurb. You have a history of making comments and nominations at ITN that many would perceive as creating drama - what about the Claude proposal last month complete with sarcastic comments about another editor's proposal regarding the name of an Indian state? AusLondonder (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Anthropic and Claude are still making lots of news. For example, see The Take: How is the US using Anthropic’s Claude AI in Iran? -- that's from just two hours ago. ITN's failure to report the continuing major stories about them is strange. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Your nomination was doomed because yet again you used it to engage in point-scoring such as piping the link from the United States Department of Defense to the US Department of War and make petty comments about how irrelevant news from India is. You're doing the same thing here with unnecessary, off-topic comments such as suggesting it is ironic France and Britain, who haven't fought each other for over 200 years, are both defending Cyprus. AusLondonder (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This shows how the conflict is now bringing in Europe. Guz13 (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The alternative blurb is factually incorrect as the military assets are being dispatched from various countries to defend Cyprus more generally, not specifically the British base, as the sources make clear. AusLondonder (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Iran has fired missiles and drones at a score of facilities that the US air force are using. With many defensive moves. NATO members such as the UK and Turkey have already been fighting defensively - which might be more significant. If we had an ongoing, this would be a non discussion. But we don't have an ongoing because this war is still blurbed (and the top blurb at that). If it's that significant, combine with existing blurb. Nfitz (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Note - "Drone" is the colloquial term used by the media but NOT military sources, when it's almost always incorrect. The proper term is UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. Most of them are discount cruise missiles or loitering munition. The word "drone" came about because of semi-automated UAVs and has been used incorrectly for everything from RC quadcopters, to Shaheds. Note that even short description calls it "Iranian unmanned aerial combat vehicles." Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose To think that this is even remotely notable in the context of what is going on Iran is baffling enough that I can't see this as anything other than Andrew voicing frustration with ITN with another WP:POINTY nomination. Gotitbro (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose not notable in significance compared to the rest of the conflict. – LuniZunie(talk) 02:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Andrew, for the love of god, we're all tired of your WP:POINTY behavior at this board. Please stop wasting our time. TheKip(contribs) 05:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
It's interesting that Pakistan's navy is at the fore of this when we've only just stopped blurbing their conflict with Afghanistan. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. This is also largely unrelated to the current proposal. Jalapeño(utg) 08:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Regarding the timeline: rumors started appearing online on the 8th of March. The source currently used in the article was published 10 March, as was the blog post that the source is also linking. Another blog post (in French) was published 9 March. —andrybak (talk) 10:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I can only see affirmed news reporting as early as March 10 (not just random blogs) and much more on March 11 and 12, so I would push this up to at least March 10 for nomination. Masem (t) 23:46, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support: Seems to be an adequate summary of his life, adequately sourced. Given what a significant figure he was, one might be surprised by that one paragraph is sufficient for "[his] most significant work". But I think the right things are mentioned, and you can follow the links for details. --PaulBetteridge (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: At present, article with minimal information specifically about his writing career or the subjects he wrote about. SpencerT•C 11:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Added some more about his writing career. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Second Gen Z protest-inspired election to happen (varies by definition), article looks good. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Election victory following protests, pretty obviously notable enough for blurb. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, with additional comment The quality of the article appears to be expanded enough for posting. Also shouldn't the blurb be in 7 or 8 March? A solid portion of the preliminary results were revealed by Nepal's Election Commission on those days. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Soft Support article still needs work on results Scuba 18:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Balen Shah article is not even close to postable quality as of writing. Bremps... 19:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
The focus is the bolded article, not the article for Balen Shah. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
For clarity, I've struck your vote, Template:U. We only evaluate articles shown in bold font. Schwede66 09:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support the article is of good quality compared to a lot of others that've been posted, results prose should be expanded, but to me it's not a deal breaker. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article is looking good and this is a very significant election, given last year's gen Z protests and the fact this has resulted it a pretty big shakeup of the Nepali parliamentary composition. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
The "Seats changing hands" , "Notable losses", "Candidates by Province", and "2022–25 MPs not standing for re-election" subsections are not fully sourced. The main bulk of the article looks good, but there is a lot of extraneous material that needs sourcing. Natg 19 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted Noting Natg's concerns, but also mindful of the comment that this election article is much better developed than most elections that we do post. Schwede66 20:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work The target article was created by Template:U and so I suppose it has a sound foundation but it has had multiple orange tags for some time -- one of them since 2010. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose since this is not even the first case of leprosy being eradicated in a country. Also the linked article doesn't mention the fact that either country eradicated leprosy either. NotKringe (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The article needs work before it can featured. Guz13 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, article is in poor shape though Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Seems too small scale in scope. The elimination of leprosy in the world would be notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Yeah but our top blurb's a week old, and positive news is pretty rare Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per NotKringe. Not the first in the world, and the first in the Americas feels like a weak rationale for blurbing. TheKip(contribs) 07:41, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - trivia. The attached image is also confusing and wouldn't be helpful to readers. Jalapeño(utg) 08:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The sea level is rising due to thermal expansion and melting ice.
The image comes from the Nature paper. It is rather busy but it highlights the impact on populations, which seem to be non-trivial. Note also that we are currently blurbing a flooding story in a comparatively small region.
There are other global charts in the paper and we have other options such as a simple image from our article (right).
Oppose Trivia, not suited for ITN. I'm by no means that informed about how people at DYK handle their trivia/noms, but this could maybe be a possible nom for them. TwistedAxe[contact] 08:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I've nominated numerous articles at DYK and so am very familiar with their criteria. The sea level article does not qualify as it's not new, having been created over 20 years ago. It was created early in the life of Wikipedia as it is considered level-4 WP:VITAL – a fairly fundamental topic for the encyclopedia. The flooding article that we're currently blurbing would have been eligible for DYK because it's new. And it's more trivial because it's not vital per WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I think it's very very clear, @Andrew Davidson, that you absolutely do not understand their criteria, based on the number of times you repeat the same mistakes. Your contribution here is a net waste of time for the project. Are you the only person who doesn't see this? Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose– Nice work to Pol098, but the article update is not appropriately significant to warrant featuring yet. Especially if, subjectively, the blurb is so vague. I do like a blurb that is more specific. I proposed an alternative. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The alt gives an average global figure of 25 cm which doesn't sound like much. But note that sea level rise explains that Template:Tq So, the revision is over a century's worth of comfort room. And it's just an average so some areas, such as SE Asia, get the sea lion's share. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I am bewildered by the "trivia" !votes, as this discovery/reveal has enormous implications. An additional 25 centimeters on top of any other estimates already in play is huge. This is why this news story meets WP:ITNSIGNIF so easily, as shown by the sources listed in the nomination. I don't know what to make out of these "trivia" comments, they seem to come out of nowhere. I'm not familiar enough with the field or with this new paper to know if this is the biggest climate news story of the past decade, but I expect it's in that domain. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - This sounds like trivia. Guz13 (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me what "trivia" means and how we measure it for ITN nominations? To me, these !votes straddle a line between absurd and in poor taste. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
They seem to be the sort of dismissive one-word comment which WP:ITNDONT advises against: Template:Tq The actual reliable sources don't seem to use the word "trivial". Instead they indicate that there are significant implications for over 100 million people. For example, Template:TqbAndrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support if the blurb were to include the reaction/impact of this finding (not implications) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose It's just trivia! Squalwer (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm not sure that this is actually trivia - there's a bigger issue in this nomination. Read the article in Nature. This is not saying that sea level rises are higher than previously estimated as much as sea level rises have not been correctly considered for the purposes of evaluating coastal hazard assessments, based on the assumption of the geoid model for the earth's shape, when reality is more complicated. It's not saying that sea levels have been rising globally faster than previously measured. I think the OP and several of the news agencies reporting on the Nature article have not understood what the paper is saying. I'm not seeing the egregious nature of this particular nomination, compared to most of those by this nominator. Nfitz (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Weak oppose as not breaking news, things are the same as they've awlays been, only the observations are new.–DMartin (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The article needs work but it is a notable person. Guz13 (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
@CREditzWiki@Guz13Template:Tqq: Reviewers are asked to comment on the current state of the article. It's a given that any biography is notable enough to be posted. —Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Over a handful of citation needed tags remain.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
@Natg 19: Thanks. I did a quick spot check at Template:Slink and found three sentences that were not fully supported by recently added sources. I tagged them. —Bagumba (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted I've removed the unverified content from the article so that it's ready. Schwede66 21:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Support The article is sufficiently sourced throughout, meeting quality standards. International coverage of the sinking meets notability. The sinking is the first time a US Navy submarine has sunk a ship since the Pacific theater of WW2, which also meets significance. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose part of the ongoing conflict. Jalapeño(utg) 12:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The start of the war and the assassination of the Supreme Leader are already at the top of the blurbs. If this war had only lingered in ongoing, then maybe - though it's a very small ship compared to the Russian cruiser Moskva which we did blurb. Also, not only is this not the only Iranian ship that the US has sunk this week, it's not even the only ship of this particular class! Nfitz (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This is already in the current conflict. Guz13 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as intentionally POINTy and covered by the existing blurb. Wikipedia is not a news ticker. TheKip(contribs) 05:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose covered by existing blurb. TheKip(contribs) 22:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose part of the Iran conflict. Also overly speculative as full impact of the straits clousure is not known Masem (t) 23:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment - the latter article does not meet on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The ship was sunk off the southern coast of Sri Lanka, something like 2,000 miles from the Straight of Hormuz. Both are part of the general Iran war, but I don’t think you can tangibly connect the shipping crisis with the frigate sinking as part of a single overarching story to warrant another blurb. RPH (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I agree, these "first since YYYY" or "first since (whatever)" are being pushed out way too much on ITN for their actual impact. These stories aren't connected any more than the strike on Khamenei was connected to me paying extra for gasoline half the globe away, and shouldn't be combined as a blurb. Departure– (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
The most recent "first since" blurb was Template:Tq That was in 2010. Some editors won't be content until ITN never posts anything, it seems. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I meant as in at ITN/C, especially the past year or so, and I'm fairly certain you've been behind a lot of those nominations. When something with one of those "biggest since 1970" addendums gets consensus, it isn't posted, because unless we're talking thermonuclear bombs, there's not much difference between something happening today and 50 years ago in terms of ITN blurb-worthiness. Departure– (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I didn't nominate any of these. My meagre contribution was to support the eclipse and make a non-committal comment about the tomb. In 2024, there weren't any "first since" nominations at all. So, I'm not seeing any evidence for "way too much" and therefore it's still Template:Tl.
This would have been notable regardless of whether it was the first or not as it was a new national leader. (Also I'm confused as it looks like there was a democratic election in 1998). Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as it's covered by the current blurb and the two incidents aren't directly related. I'm sure when this goes onto ongoing we can debate adding other pages in brackets after.
Oppose. These two events are not directly related and both are parts of the ongoing war, which already has a blurb. Modest Geniustalk 18:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
No, that wasn't the reason the war blurb was posted, but you are pushing that here. Masem (t) 20:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
@Masem, keep in mind the nominator here has a rather distorted view of how ITN works. TheKip(contribs) 19:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Then why haven't we topic-banned them yet for being disruptive, and repeating falsehoods that they have been corrected on many, many times? Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
@Nfitz they've not been brought to ANI in a while as nobody's been both not prejudiced enough to color the entire post and willing to compile evidence for such a post. TheKip(contribs) 06:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment This is a strange bundling of stories, these two events lack any direct correlation beyond both being naval action related to the war in Iran. Frankly I would Support a blurb centered on just the Strait closure and impending oil crisis around the world, it's something that impacts pretty much every corner of the globe, but shoehorning in the sunken ship is strange to me. BSMRD (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - This blurb doesn't make sense. The strait isn't closed because of the torpedoed ship. Guz13 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as covered by existing blurbs. And 'X as Y' headlines, where the link between X and Y is either (a) obscure, as here, or (b) causal in a way that belongs in the headline, which is very much not the case here, are a blight on modern journalism. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Split The combined presentation was a tentative start, as explained in the nomination. As this is not liked, I've reworked this nomination with an alt focussing just on the shipping crisis. The sinking story has been split off now. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support a blurb that mentions the rise in global oil prices Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 13:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance, oppose on quality - at present the article is a bit of a mess, both in terms of organisation and prose quality. But the dissolution of a major and controversial religious organisation seems highly significant and worthy of inclusion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as from the blurb it's not even clear what's being dissolved. Unification is based in South Korea, but the blurb says "Unification Church of Japan", while the article and the linked BBC source say the organization as a whole, all of this putting aside whether the Tokyo High Court has the power to dissolve a foreign organization. Departure– (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Other sources all point to this only at the Japanese chapter, as dissolution forces the to lose the designation as a church in Japan affecting taxes, etc. Masem (t) 16:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
If it is just the dissolution of the Japan chapter, this does not seem "significant" to me. Closing of the entire church overall would be significant for ITN. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Support an alt that removes the link to the Shinzo Abe assassination. That was years ago and it may have set off a chain of events, it's not directly linked. Also, blurb can make it more clear it's the Japanese Chapter: "The Tokyo High Court orders the dissolution of the Japanese chapter of the Unification Church"Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
My reading from the sources all say that Abe's assassination triggered the investigation into the church leading to this decision. There are other contributing factors why the decided that way that existed before the assassination, but the church was only put under the microscope from that. Masem (t) 16:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
You can argue the string of events are related, but the legal decision was done after an investigation. So it's best to say "after an investigation..." rather than tying it to an assassination several years ago. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
But nearly all sourcing for this story today mention this being a result of the assassination, and it would seem inappropriate to not mention that event that we posted back when as a driver for this finding. Masem (t) 05:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that may be the broader context and someone may read an article for the broader context. But for a headline, the direct chain of events is: Investigation --> conclusion --> Action. The blurb as written implies Abe was assassinated, authorities sat around for a few years and shrugged their shoulders and dissolved the Japanese branch. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Support leaving in the link to Abe's assassination as this is what started all of this, but Oppose for now due to quality. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work For example, the section Persecution has entries for several countries but not Japan. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
My link is to a relevant section in the nominated article. Howard's is something else. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Again, "persecution" is not linked to any of the suggested blurbs. I don't know what the issue is here. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance A pretty big development and the product of Shinzo Abe's assassination. His links to the Unification Church and the LDP's broader links caused a significant discussion within the Japanese political space regarding their relationship. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The assassination article ties the dissolution and is in far better shape than the church article. Also Criticism of the Unification Church in Japan has a section on the dissolution, and that is also in far better shape than the church's article. Either of these could serve as the target article in lieu of the church's. Masem (t) 00:53, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose on quality There's very little information on the dissolution itself in the main article, and the history section is very light on any recent events. Given the very many forks on the subject, I would expect such a big development to have a Dissolution of the Unification Church article, with the full background, history of the proceedings, legal basis, outcome and reaction. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Just a note that this blurb is NOT the dissolution of the Unification Church. The order is only for the Japan chapter/branch of the Church. Natg 19 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on significance as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Support on notability, oppose on quality Per Abcmaxx. I think this is a significant development, but the subject article is lacking. FlipandFlopped㋡ 02:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - This is an important article as it connects to the events of 2022. Guz13 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment The Unification Church is only ordered to be dissolved in Japan. There's no guarantee it's going to happen and the Unification Church will still continue to exist elsewhere. Altblurb added. Jalapeño(utg) 12:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
To add, this decision was already made in 2025 and was only upheld by the High Court now. So posting it now makes no sense. I oppose for this reason, and I updated the altblurb to reflect this. Jalapeño(utg) 13:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
The reason to post now is that for purposes of Japan's legal system, the Tokyo High Court ruling is considered final (from the sources), comparative to when the US Supreme Court rules on something. There is a route for an appeal to the Japanese Supreme Court but all sources suggest this is rarely ever used. Masem (t) 15:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Follow the money: Casting this as some branch operation's closure is extremely misleading. Despite Moon's Korean start, the Japanese branch has long been the most successful of all, and deeply intertwined for decades with Japanese politics. The last detail was suppressed for decades, until the Abe assassination forced it into the open. See the 2-2-2026 New Yorker article on the trial of Abe's assassin and his recent conviction. ~2026-14366-36 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Banning of a fringe foreign organisation. If it was being banned in its home country or in a country where it has loads of adherents that would be a different story. As it is now it's relatively routine. –DMartin (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I think calling it fringe is a little misleading; they have had a strong foothold in Japan and at their peak they had a reportable percentage of the population. They wield an asymmetrical and very significant amount of political and monetary power in Japan though which can't really be deemed irrelevant. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose any blurb mentioning the Abe shooting, neutral on posting. ITN is not about root causes and the blurb makes it sound like it happened a day ago. The chain of causation is indirect. Bremps... 01:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Oh funny, I gave almost the same rationale above. Yes, there needs to be an alt-blurb. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
We can add the assassination date (2022) to the blurb, but nearly all sources covering this attribute the court case as an immediate result of the assassination. Masem (t) 13:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this. The history and criticism are two completely different things with different subject scopes. The history artice would only make sense if it was a WP:FORK from the history section of the main article. If we want a specific target article then in should really be called Dissolution of the Unification Church in Japan. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Support update to current blurb regarding the US-Israeli strikes and death of Ali Khamenei, as it's a continuation of the same news story. Kurtis(talk) 12:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
That blurb is getting longer and longer Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait Both given sources above as well as other reports all suggest he is either the top pick or likely will be voted, but there's been zero official word on this. Obviously, once affirmed, this should be added to the existing blurb since it's not likely to fall off ITN for a few more days at this rate. Masem (t) 12:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait Correct me if I am wrong but he hasn't been voted in yet Otto (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment looks like most sources are saying he's the favourite candidate and tipped to win but not officially confirmed.
Wait There's no official statement made by the Assembly. Wait until they confirm it, and then update accordingly. I want to agree with Masem about integrating it into the current blurb, but with the blurb already being as long as it is right now, I'm slightly leaning towards a new blurb as this is about the election of a new leader and counts as ITN/R. TwistedAxe[contact] 14:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
The new updated blurb could be "Mojtaba Khanemei is elected Supreme Leader of Iran following the death of Ali Khanemei during strikes by the U.S. and Israel." Masem (t) 15:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Sounds good. Will add as an altblurb & consider it a support once the Assembly confirms Mojtaba is picked as the Supreme Leader. TwistedAxe[contact] 17:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment It appears Iran International had Mojtaba Khamenei confirmed as supreme leader, per "informed sources". That could be why there's such a rush to post, even if "informed sources" is shaky at best for a blurb post. I'll also add they're not, to my knowledge, the most unbiased source for Iranian politics, so I echo calls to wait. Departure– (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
My impression of Iran International is that they have good contacts in Iran and so will be well-informed. They may have an agenda too but WP:RSP doesn't have an entry for them. Let's see how this "exclusive" plays out. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait for additional sources, this is premature. - Indefensible (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait per above. TheKip(contribs) 18:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait for confirmation, it shouldn’t take that long for it. Neither NPR or the BBC mentioned the appointment on their hourly news updates, so I guess it isn’t official yet. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait for confirmation, as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
I know above is closed, but now Iran has confirmed , so now we shoudl consider amending the blurb. Masem (t) 21:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
A new discussion has opened above under the 8 March header. As sources claim this decision was made Sunday, 8 March, re-opening this would be unnecessary. Departure– (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Don't even have to click the article, there's a {{cn span}} in the preview. Departure– (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Make that a strong oppose. The section "Comettiisms" features the textbook definition of WP:CITEOVERKILL--twenty-three refs stacked on top of each other. For your amusement, I've attached it here. Departure– (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Looks like someone removed that section. Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Orange-tagged; that's a showstopper. Schwede66 21:59, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
@QuicoleJR It looks like it got removed by another user. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Either way, the lead is there to summarise what is in the body of the article. A proper bio has the date of birth in the body of the article, which is where it should be referenced, Template:U. Schwede66 21:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Template:Re You removed the citation without explanation. I've restored it, as it was verifying the birthdate. —Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Article quality is now sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment This event happened on 3 March 2026. Departure– (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: While we have posted total solar eclipses, a quick spot check of the two most recent total lunar eclipses in 2025 shows that they weren't posted to ITN (September 2025 lunar eclipse and March 2025 lunar eclipse). SpencerT•C 03:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The referenced April 2024 eclipse was a solar eclipse, this was a lunar eclipse. Lunar eclipses are far more common and significantly less newsworthy events for a load of reasons. RPH (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Lunar eclipses are frequent, widely visible, and not particularly significant. They're nice to look at, and I encourage everyone to do so when they can, but that's not enough for ITN. Besides, the article has almost no prose - it's a gallery and list of related eclipses. Modest Geniustalk 12:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Such events are best posted when they are happening so that people have a chance to see it for themselves. This is too stale now. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Checking Google News, I don't think this quite met WP:ITNSIGNIF anyway. Our articles on eclipses are nice, but very data-heavy, which always makes me unsure about how encyclopedic they are and what quality I should consider them at... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per RPH. Lunar eclipses are more common. WP:ITN/Reoccuring doesn't include lunar eclipses and not very significant. RoyalSilver 19:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. And shouldn't this be closed by now? Guz13 (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose This new collapse should be a separate article from the January collapse, not to mention that this article is lacking detail and isn't of great quality. Jalapeño(utg) 07:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Good work to Bloxzge 025 for updating the article. I don't think the article's update is very detailed yet, but if we hadn't featured this article yet back in January, I'm comfortable with it getting blurbed as-is now. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Not ready. We posted the January collapse and this new one seems of similar magnitude and impact. So in principle I would support posting another blurb. However the article has only two sentences about the March event, which say nothing beyond the nominated blurb. This needs at least a full paragraph of referenced prose about the March incident before it could be posted. Modest Geniustalk 12:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
OpposeAP says that the facts are disputed. As this is a remote warzone, we're unlikely to get good independent confirmation. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The quality on this article needs to be improved. Guz13 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
I've placed some citation needed tags, and together with what was there already, there are now five of them. That's too many. Schwede66 03:55, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
"Ready" removed for now. SpencerT•C 15:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Citations added, or uncited statements removed.Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted to RD. Referencing issues resolved. SpencerT•C 03:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Ineligible. This article is already posted, as the first blurb on the template. In can't be listed in the ongoing section at the same time as having a blurb. Modest Geniustalk 16:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Okay, but where in Wikipedia does it say that? Who says it's ineligible? ~2026-51002-1 (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose I think after the Iran blurb rolls off we should add 2026 Iran conflict to ongoing. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Almost a dozen countries have been hit and are involved the conflict, we of course are not going to blurb each incident separately. The most significant aspects have been blurbed and the rest will be rolled off to ongoing. Gotitbro (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a small part of the wider war, which already has a blurb. I'm also sceptical that this event merits an entire article - it could be a single paragraph in Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war. Modest Geniustalk 12:46, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
As the Wikipedian below stated, this is Saudi Arabia's largest oil refinery and a huge part of their oil export chain. Its closure means a large disruption to Saudi oil exports as a whole. Given these effects, I think it can be considered notable enough. DoO2 21:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Support This is Saudi Arabia's largest oil refinery and they plan to close it for weeks. They plan to reroute its output via the Red Sea but that's where the Houthis hang out. Seems like this might be quite significant and the current blurb doesn't even mention Saudi Arabia or the other affected producers. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Insufficient depth of coverage. Opening sentence states that he is an author, but the body of the article only has 2 sentences regarding works he has written: "He stood down in 2007 to take up the Creative New Zealand Michael King Writers' Fellowship, during which he completed a comprehensive book on the Tasman Sea, The Tasman: Biography of an Ocean" and "Peat published over 40 titles including those on regional national history of New Zealand and on national birds such as the kiwi and New Zealand falcon". SpencerT•C 03:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support. The article is basic but seems a reasonable biography, sufficiently referenced, and has been updated. I'll assume good faith on the Russian-language source for his death. Good enough to post. Modest Geniustalk 12:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
Posted after I first tidied up the death date as per the article's source. Schwede66 03:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Support - meets requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Coverage of her career is a mere resume/CV with mostly a listing of positions without further details or accomplishments. Fails WP:ITNQUALITY's Template:Tqq.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD proposal: Iranian officials killed during war
Um... I don't think it's a bad idea, frankly. I think we could make an extraordinary exception, but obviously the list is incomplete (the former Iranian president is missing, for example) and I think we also need to review the quality of the articles listed. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
At present, we have 5 RD noms pending and Khamenei's that we blurbed. There are at least 5 more that could be nom'd. I can't think of any precedent for this happening, and this isn't a bad solution to the fact that at least 11 notable people died within a short span and only one or two have a chance of being blurbed. 1brianm7 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support Makes sense since we have multiple Iranian officials who were killed yesterday and having a single list on RD while preserving the current RD people on is best. Otherwise we’d have a bunch of Iranian officials name on the main page for at least a whole day. The only exceptions is the blurbed assassination of Ali Khamenei and possibly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if confirmed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support as per above. This is an unusual circumstance for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support because it's a good idea. I haven't reviewed every article for quality though. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support pending quality checks. A clever solution to this problem. Chorchapu (talk|edits) 23:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment Any precedent for mass RD listings such as this? Would oppose otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
And I am not too confident if this listicle passes the FORK test. Gotitbro (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, with the caveat that I support Khamenei's inclusion in the main blurb, and Ahmadinejad too once his article is ready. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support If that article list did not exist, individual nominations for each death for Iranian officials would likely overshadow other RDs that could be nominated. The perspective for viewers browsing the main page should also be considered, as the viewer would most likely see lots of Iranian officials on RD when in the case of individual nominations. This article is a solution to this extraordinary case. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Comment: To tell the truth, I think with the rapid developments, we should consider actually having an "ongoing" event for this conflict. Trump just said he expected the war to last a month. And with the constant exchange of missiles, it seems this flare-up isn't going to end soon.--ZKang123 (talk·contribs) 01:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
oppose it is part of the blub.Psephguru (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
this is an RD nom, not blurb nom? Ion.want.uu (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose The last major time we had a disaster with multiple notable people that died from it, it was LaMia Flight 2933, where we mentioned a whole football team (effectively) had died, see Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/November 2016. Here, it makes sense that if there is a list of all the officials that had died, even as a subsection somewhere, we can include that in the current blurb, rather than trying to list them all in the RD line. Masem (t) 03:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The difference there is they all died at once so a single blurb could encapsulate it. The attacks on Iran are ongoing and the news of deaths is coming in day by day. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Its still a single event for our purposes. Masem (t) 12:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Linked in the blurb; not sure practically how this would work--is it going to remain after it ages off with additional RD postings? Consider ongoing after the main item rolls off. SpencerT•C 03:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Any continuation of the conflict that results in more RD eligible people dying will almost certainly mean the conflict gets an ongoing message. I think this issue solves itself Omnifalcon (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support and set as precedent this is a great solution for situations like this where large sums of notable people die in a very short period of time all for the same reason, and could be applied to so many situations like wars or accidents where this type of stuff may happen. Ion.want.uu (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support but I think it'd be a better idea to just write a separate blurb, e.g. Template:Tq. Davey2116 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Add to existing blurb A link to this list could be appended to the existing blurb, making it clearer that it was not just the Supreme Leader that was targeted and killed. For example, "Israel and the United States launch strikes on Iran, killing its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei(pictured), along with many other senior officlals." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Agreeing with this one. Description in RD would be either too vague or too long. ~2026-13516-26 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
This solution makes the most sense and minimal disruption to ITN box Masem (t) 12:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support, add Ahmadinejad if his assassination is confirmed properly. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Support adding to the blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Merged into the existing blurb. – robertsky (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
We should close all of the relevant proposed entries below which are covered by this blurb and will no longer be individually posted. - Indefensible (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait A new supreme leader is ITNR indeed, but this is different than that. I'm not so sure about whether the existence of an interim leadership council passes the threshold... is the interim council the Template:Tq, as required by ITNR, or rather an interim body governing during a period where there is no 'holder of the office'? In any event, even if it is ITNR, I'm also seeing conflicting reports flat out saying that Alireza Arafi is officially the new leader. We should wait until there is either greater clarity or perhaps until the Assembly of Experts has formalized the change. FlipandFlopped㋡ 15:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The body that makes this call is the Expediency Discernment Council. Iran seems better organised than the US when it comes to observing its constitution, eh? Andrew🐉(talk) 15:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Implied by the existing blurb - someone has to be running the country albeit for a temporary period after the death of the leader. Once someone more permanent is named, likely weeks to months away, then that would be the ITNR to post. Masem (t) 15:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Sometimes you get anarchy, civil war or a power struggle if the succession is not well-organised. And, even if it's done properly, as in this case, the point of the ITN/R event is to announce the name(s) of the people now in charge. We should not just leave readers to figure this out for themselves. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Whether its ITNR or not is debatable, but even if ITNR, the posting of a specific ITNR can be discussed if it should be posted when there are unusual situations. This is such a case, in addition to the double coverage in blurbs that we are trying to avoid. Masem (t) 16:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
We should probably have a decision in interim/acting leaders, We've skipped the merry-go-round in South Korea before, and it seems this is a similar matter now... but not Peru. (For some reason, I also don't think people would skip acting/interim PMs in European countries.) Howard the Duck (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Because interm leaders are just that, temporarily, they shouldn't automatically be a ITNR blurb. Nearly all the time, the reason there's an intern leader is due to the leader having died, resigned, or similar, and that is nearly always a blurb-worthy on its own, so I would expect in that article to learn what the interm leadership will be pending the country's laws, and if there is reasonable space in the blurb, to include it there. Masem (t) 18:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
There's a good reason such interim/acting leaders be excluded from ITNR, isn't it? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
If we know there's a more permanent leader selection in the near future in the absence of a standard line of succession (as we do here), yes. If this was going to be around for years before they'd get to naming a new leader proper, sure, but we know that's not the case now. Masem (t) 03:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
We have an ongoing situation now with multiple new developments such as the shutdown of shipping in the Gulf. We shouldn't let the existence of the initial blurb prevent posting more updates as this might cause a gridlock. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Needs work The article has very little prose outside of mentioning the council's formation and quoting from Iran's constitution. FallingGravity 15:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Looks like a very short term development. The same Al Jazeera article linked in the nomination says: "Although the leadership council will govern in the interim, the Assembly of Experts “must, as soon as possible,” pick a new supreme leader, according to the Iranian constitution." Nsk92 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The state of war may delay this. They probably won't want to be assembling their top people in one place for a while... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This is not ITNR because it is just a temporary/transition committee. This event is part of the big picture which contains alot of important events. This specific event does not deserve its own blurb. Tradediatalk 16:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Support We should be figuring out how to put all these individually notable and blurb-worthy events into 2 or 3 blurbs, or perhaps even a banner like we had for the pandemic. We hear all the time about "systemic bias" at ITN. If an analogous event happened in a Western country, involving the death of the incumbent leader, a former president, high-ranking defense officials, a triple-digit death toll of literal children at an elementary school, the activation of emergency constitutional measures, etc., etc., etc., do we really think we would post only one blurb? Davey2116 (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, find past examples to prove your point rather than conjecturing. This is not bias, it is not being hasty. - Indefensible (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Your response further proves my point. As stated as obvious fact by many above, this is an unprecedented event to happen in any country. To ask for a past example of this, especially within Wikipedia ITN history, is just silly. Davey2116 (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
A recent precedent is Venezuela. The swearing in of Delcy Rodríguez as the acting president was nominated as ITN/R and posted at ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
The point is that it was posted. The mechanics of bundling the various developments in Iran are an implementation detail. Maybe we should have a bigger blurb with more than one sentence so that we can cover all the key points. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Also that is an incumbent leader, this is just a council to pick a leader which is only expected to last a few days.
Expectations vary. See this analysis which the article presents asTemplate:TqbSo, we'll just have to wait and see about that. In the meantime, we should report what we do know so that readers have the current up-to-date position and thus emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - wait until a leader is selected. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose We don't usually post interim or acting leaders when a new leader is to be elected/appointed soon (for example, Bangladesh usually has an interim PM before an election, if I recall correctly). I've seen reports that state that a new supreme leader will be appointed in 2-3 days - so let's wait. Khuft (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait Reliable sources suggest we have no clear idea what the bleep is going on in Iran's government right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
And I agree with others above. This is not ITNR, neither the council nor Arafi succeed Khamenei as the supreme leader/head of state which is going to be decided by the election. Gotitbro (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait per Gotitbro. TheKip(contribs) 20:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
UpdateReuters reports that the council has met and this confirms that the transition is happening. Meanwhile the IRGC has a new commander – Ahmad Vahidi. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Wait. This is just an interim body. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
Oppose interim leadership is to be expected after the assassination of the previous dictator - which is already blurbed - and I assume (and will support) and ongoing Middle East War or something after it rolls off. When a new dictator comes to power, that should be blurbed. Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
That's a remarkable development. I wonder whether they had reached a decision on the new supreme leader or whether that will now be delayed while they find some more experts. When we have more details, we might add something about this to this blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
The latest reporting says that the assembly building in Qom was destroyed while the votes were being counted and that this was done by Israel deliberately to delay election of a new supreme leader. I'll add an alt to this effect. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Administrator note Realizing this is a hot button topic for some, I would like to gently remind everyone that this discussion is Not a Forum. Please resist any temptation to make pointy comments. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Thank you... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
Posted. Left guide (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)
), contains substantial updates, receiving a decent amount of coverage, and is something other than a disaster (if people are that opposed to this turning into .jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Done JimmyCetacea (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
article on ITN. — Knightoftheswords 07:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC).jpg)
class article, transformative individual in his field, and contrary to what some folks here state, he was indeed globally famous. Claims of "americocentrism" are a farce. — Knightoftheswords 21:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
