Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut

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

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

Tô Lâm in 2025
Tô Lâm

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

Nomination steps

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

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

Voicing an opinion on an item

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

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

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

Structure

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

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

February 3

February 2

RD: Ranjit Das (footballer)

Article: Ranjit Das (footballer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Star
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: In decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(READY) Costa Rica election

Proposed image
Article: 2026 Costa Rican general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Laura Fernández Delgado (pictured) is elected as the president of Costa Rica. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

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: With over 3/4 of the votes counted, Fernandez has achieved a majority. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose article needs a lot of work. It needs more in-depth coverage of the election (background, prose on candidates and results sections, Aftermath and/or Reactions section, more extensive Campaign) and covers almost nothing about the Legislative Assembly elections. The article in Spanish may help. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am improving the article. A helping hand would be great, especially to include updated tables in the infobox and legislative assembly results, and to expand the campaign section (it would be desirable to compile the candidates' proposals). _-_Alsor (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alsor97: I can help with expansion. Which parts do you plan to work on, to avoid edit conflicts? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chorchapu I won't continue until tomorrow, so feel free to edit without any worries on my part. The campaign section needs to be expanded: you can take a look at 2025 Chilean general election and 2025 Honduran general election, which I worked recently on and think will give you some guidance. Thank you! _-_Alsor (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you as well! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chorchapu And also a section about parliamentary candidates is needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll support this blurb once the campaign section is expanded via content from the Spanish article. A results prose appears to exist in the header of the article at this time, and it can be simply transferred over to the results section. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support The campaign and aftermath sections have been expanded. Results have their respective proses. Amount of sourcing is adequate. The article appears ready to post. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Article significantly expanded since original nomination, and contains an acceptable amount of prose and is fully cited. Seeing no reason to oppose any longer. Has the quality I would expect for a front page article of a current event. Certainly could probably continue to be expanded, but at present, it looks ready! AaronNealLucas (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

February 1

Grammy Awards

Proposed image
Article: 68th Annual Grammy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Grammy Awards, "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar and SZA wins Record of the Year, and Debí Tirar Más Fotos by Bad Bunny (pictured) wins Album of the Year. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Grammy Awards, "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar and SZA wins Record of the Year, and Debí Tirar Más Fotos by Bad Bunny (pictured) wins Album of the Year, becoming the first Spanish-language album to win in the category.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At the Grammy Awards, "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar and SZA wins Record of the Year, and Debí Tirar Más Fotos by Bad Bunny wins Album of the Year.
News source(s): THR, NYTimes
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Per format for Grammys at ITNR. Article is updated with the winners, and has details of the ceremony's performances, but there is currently a lack of any type of commentary/reception on the ceremony itself which should be there given the ceremony is what we feature. Masem (t) 05:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITNR and good article Scooglers (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support There appears to be an 'In Memoriam' section that's in need of expansion at the end of the article, but that empty section doesn't detract from the good sourcing and sufficient quality that's present in the rest of the article. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Australian Open

Carlos Alcaraz
Elena Rybakina
Alcaraz and Rybakina
Article: 2026 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Carlos Alcaraz becomes men's singles champion and Elena Rybakina becomes and women's singles champion at the 2026 Australian Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In tennis, Carlos Alcaraz wins the men's singles and Elena Rybakina wins the women's singles at the Australian Open.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In tennis, Carlos Alcaraz wins the Australian Open to become the youngest male player to complete the career Grand Slam.
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. The issues preventing this from posting are quality related, as this is significant enough to post, per ITN/R. Natg 19 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I am suggesting is to use Carlos Alcaraz as the target article, instead of the 2026 Australian Open. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rita Süssmuth

Article: Rita Süssmuth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German politician (CDU) and president of the Bundestag. Grimes2 23:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DRC mine collapse

Article: 2026 Rubaya mine collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 200 people are killed in a mine collapse in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major mining collapse in the DRC. Per List of mining disasters in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the deadliest mining disaster in the DRC this millennium. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality. It is the deadliest meteorological event this year and hundreds of people died. However, the article is extremly short for such a deadly disaster. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article for the meteorological event, @Bloxzge 025? If the damage is more widespread than this, that may be a better target for this (likely ITN) entry. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is not, and this seems to be the only large effect of the rainfall. All news articles focus on this event. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Collapse happened on the 28th, news has been slowly reporting on it, but for example, the Guardian article (I just added) is dated the 29th, so it needs to be moved to Jan 28th. Preliminary support on significance but the article needs significant expansion. Masem (t) 00:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the Guardian article in the nomination dated January 30? Not long before midnight GMT (about 50 minutes before January 31). Is there, @Masem, a different Guardian article you are referring to? Though I do wonder why we are discussing this, but not the thousands killed already this year in the civil war. Nfitz (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I was looking at dates since published in my Google search, not the date on the article. But still, the collapse was on the 28th and sources were talking about it on the 30th (not seeing anything english before then). And its RGW to complain about the lack of coverage of the civil war, given that as best as I can tell no one ever nominated it, and plus in regions which are nearly constantly under some type of civil war or rebellion as is the case for many African nations, the news that the West gets tends to be numb to those, though we are not limited to Western sources to show something was in the news. Masem (t) 05:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability.Wi1-ch (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. Notable enough, but article is still too short for the main page. The Kip (contribs) 20:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Detention of Liam Conejo Ramos

WP:SNOW close. Relatively minor event on its own and covered by ongoing. (non-admin closure) V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Detention of Liam Conejo Ramos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A federal judge orders the release of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father (pictured) from immigration detention following national protests. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A US federal judge orders the release of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father (pictured) following national protests.
News source(s): ABC, BBC, CNN, El País, Guardian, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
 I've redone the nomination for Fife SB who is new to this process. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose--minor story covered by ongoing. Departure– (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close minor story, too local story, covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - OMG "national protests" ... "federal judge" ... not even "United States" mentioned in blurb. This would deserve some kind of administrative sanction in my utopic view of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not an American news sources. Besides, it was only a procedural "arrest" of an illegal alien. No more. CoryGlee 21:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CoryGlee, I think your suggestion of some kind of administrative sanction, even under the disclaimer of being unserious, is still WP:BITEy, given the person who nominated this is a new user who hasn't posted at ITNC before. Departure– (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is Andrew. CoryGlee 22:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not it wasn't, @CoryGlee. As noted above, it was User:Fife SB. [1]. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well. My comment then was not addressed at the new user. Not even at Andrew. CoryGlee 22:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Epstein files

Proposed image
Article: Epstein files (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US Department of Justice releases its final batch of Epstein files. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The US Department of Justice completes its review and redaction process then releases over 3 million pages and images from the Epstein files.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The US Department of Justice announces it has completed its review process and releases over 3 million documents from the Epstein files.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The US Department of Justice releases over 3 million documents from financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The US Department of Justice announces it has completed its review process and releases over 3 million documents from the investigation of financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
News source(s): ABC, Al Jazeera, BBC, Japan Times, PBS, Politico
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This seems to be the biggest release and is said to be final. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support it being in the news, but I would be careful about calling it the final batch, which is controversial. You could say DOJ releases 3M pages of materials from the Epstein files and announces that it has fully complied with the Epstein Transparency Act. --Orgullomoore (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I have added an alt blurb along those lines. I've not included the words "fully complied" because my understanding is that they failed to meet the legal deadline. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, if you're interested, Blanche gave a statement to the effect that case law excuses the lateness because of the time required for redaction. The argument was essentially that if legally required redactions were not practicable within the deadline, then it was not a violation of the law to take their sweet time. I have no idea if that's actually true, nor am I particularly interested in finding out, but thought I'd share the tidbit. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be a good excuse but it's still not full compliance. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sure, sounds good to nominate it as a "current event"! I don't know what I did to deserve a mention in "updated by", but thanks! It's fine to include my name (also would fine if you choose to remove my name) The "blurb" looks good. I'm wondering about the "alternative blurb", which currently says: "The US Department of Justice completes its review and redaction process..." Someone may argue that DOJ did not "complete" the process it was supposed to do, insofar as it identified 6M files, only released half of them, and did so a month after the deadline set by law to release everything it found. You might change the verb "completes" to "ends", so it says: "Having ended its review and redaction process, the US Department of Justice releases over 3 million pages and images from the Epstein files."
Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tuckerlieberman was listed in the credits because the stats show that they have edited the article more than any other editor and were responsible for about 20% of its current content. The ITN credit isn't a big reward though, alas; the most you get is a brief template on your talk page. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose We didn’t post any earlier stories about the Epstein Files, and as much as I want them released, I still think there were heavy redactions made on some of the perpetrators. I’ll just leave it at that. ~2026-69318-9 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC) strike sock JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite what probably many many hope these files prove, Wikipedia can't jump on making numerous claims that have been reported because of BLP and upholding "innocent before guilty". We also know that there would be prosecution to have anything in these files matter and right now there is very little chance of that happening. Masem (t) 13:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, they were released on Jan 30, which is where this should be located for nomination. Masem (t) 13:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3, definitely not a routine document release, it's being tackled by many news outlets, and it doesn't really violate BLP. Milk'n'Thyme 21:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ultimately a nothingburger; major redactions, likely not fully disclosed either, and most importantly nothing of consequence to follow. Ping me if this leads to a government going down or a move towards prosecuting any of the offenders, waiting since 2019. Gotitbro (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not relevant, @Gotitbro, but there have been multiple prosecutions since 2019. I doubt more prosecutions would make much difference, and I don't think there's much evidence released that would lead to any that would be ITN. If the alleged honey trp videos were to be released - now then that could be ITN. Nfitz (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, tabloid fodder about the sex lives of celebrities is not newsworthy.Danthemankhan 01:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    'Sex lives of celebrities' is a gross understatement at best, 'sexual abuse conducted by powerful and influential men which was hidden for decades' seems more appropriate jolielover♥talk 05:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt3, oppose original blurb We do not know if this is the final batch. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3 don't see this is a routine release, and it's in the news widely. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 – This is probably the most extensive post-news update I've seen an article have. It is difficult to judge the full quality of the work done in the past days, but it looks appropriate for a feature. I think ITNSIGNIF is very easy to confirm here, looking at both historic news coverage and the sources given in the nomination. The only question is whether this is (finally) the moment to feature our article. While perhaps court cases will follow from this, this really looks to me to be the end of the "Epstein files" chapter of these story. For this specific article, this might be the last significant news update; future news (if any) will not be focused on this article but, presumably, on specific prosecutions. As such, this does feel like the ideal moment to feature this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I'm not sure how this is playing in other countries but it's the top story here in the UK. It was all over the front pages of the newspapers when I perused them earlier. And Lord Mandelson in particular is leading the BBC bulletins now as it appears that he was feeding Epstein with inside financial info while he was a government minister. This is arising from a close perusal of those millions of documents and joining the dots. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Which WP should not be covering at any depth without the results of an actual authorized investigation or court decision per our BLP rules. The fact that the files include unrefacted names of victims as well as unredected nude images is a good reason to avoid giving them any encyclopedic weight until we know how to summarize them appropriately with policy. Masem (t) 18:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is certainly covering this in depth – see Relationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein – one of several such articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that the major Mandelson news was when he resigned, remember reading about him when Andrew was stripped of the titles.
    Ultimately unless something substantial comes of this, this is but gossip and disconcert. Gotitbro (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Any articles created from the basis of the current epstein files suggesting any person named may have done something wrong is in violation of BLP. Existing g articles where new info revealed from the files are different but editors must strongly consider how to include them to avoid BLP issues. Masem (t) 19:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You should take your concerns to an appropriate venue such as WP:BLP/N, where the matter is currently getting no attention. Our job here is to post articles which are in the news and that includes the Epstein files. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to consider all core content policies here too, we are not going to feature articles that are flooded with BLP problems, Masem (t) 21:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem hasn't detailed a single specific BLP issue and the article doesn't seem to have any cleanup tags or disputes on the talk page about such. So, this seems to be just WP:CRYBLP hand-waving without any actionable issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The big list of all the names listed in the files is a huge BLPCRIME red flag. Even given that media may have covered there and we throw "allegedly" on all these claims, we should not be at all heading down that road until claims can be affirmed true. Masem (t) 22:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no specifics. Let's suppose Masem means the section Epstein files#Prominent individuals mentioned. The first of these is Woody Allen. The paragraph about him and his wife just gives details of some correspondence and pictures about dinner parties and the like. No crime is suggested and Allen is a public figure. This doesn't seem to be a problem.
    If there were a problem, then Masem should be removing the problematic content from the article. But they are not, are they? ITN posting the existence of the article doesn't change this any of this because the article is already high traffic. And the proposed blurbs don't call out any particular person; they just announce the release. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt3 - Honestly, i feel like that given the depravity of this scandal and some of the public and news outcry about it I'm open to actually posting this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2026 Balochistan attacks

Article: 2026 Balochistan attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 133 people, including the attackers, were killed in attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army in several districts of Balochistan, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, TRT, Reuters, DW, The Guardian
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality and notability for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the deadliest attacks in recent years. They are still being reported on internationally. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but would be nice to have article lengthened Scooglers (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

RD: Billy Bass Nelson

Article: Billy Bass Nelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://soultracks.com/p-funk-star-billy-bass-nelson-dies-at-age-75/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American musician. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Salim Sayyid Mengga

Article: Salim Sayyid Mengga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detik Sulsel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indonesian military officer and politician. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

RD: Ain-Elmar Kaasik

Article: Ain-Elmar Kaasik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://novaator.err.ee/1609927394/suri-akadeemik-ain-elmar-kaasik
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Estonian neurologist. Article looks decent. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Demond Wilson

Article: Demond Wilson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Actor. Robert Motecinos Holda (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Catherine O'Hara

Proposed image
Article: Catherine O'Hara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Canadian actress and comedian Catherine O'Hara (pictured) dies aged 71. (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian actress with several notable roles (though I am not nominating for a blurb, she famous/popular but not a major figure). Article has usual problems with unsourced filmography as well as proabably too much SEAOFBLURB (prose with lists of ilms but no discussion between them) Masem (t) 18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sad news. Support once filmography is cleaned up. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with Masem about the filmography; hopefully that can be addressed collaboratively in due course. In terms of a blurb, I don’t think she quite makes the cut, although I would be very curious if there are any retrospectives about her impact and significance of her career for Canadian cinema specifically. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There possibly could be but the article must be fleshed out to discuss that in detail before considering for a blurb. But I would think she's really an edge case, similar to someone like Betty White (whom I know we posted but that was a mistake to me, far too many !votes based solely on popularity, not as a major figure). Masem (t) 21:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once sourcing is filled out; practically there with just a few gaps from my quick look at the article. On the border for a blurb for me, but will not formally oppose unless someone (IMO undoubtedly and almost certainly POINTedly) actually does so. RIP. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While my personal opinion is that every role should be sourced, we can live with any film or TV show where she is listed among the principle/starring cast in the target article for a notable, blue-linked work. Most of those TV roles are going to need that sourcing due to cameos / guest star appearance which will sourcing. Masem (t) 21:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair, I was mostly talking about the cameos myself. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support She was quite notable, being in Home Alone and Beetlejuice. RIP. GuyMan529 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD once Filmography is sufficiently sourced, as per QuicoleJR. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb There's really only a dozen or so actors alive today that I think would warrant a blurb if they died, and Catherine O'Hara is certainly not one of them. She's not a particularly notable actress (The day before she died she had around a quarter the pageviews as Brad Pitt, and a tenth of Timothee Chalamet), never received much critical acclaim, and is significantly less notable than Betty White, who we also didn't blurb. I don't see any reason why she should be blurbed. Loved her work, though. Elipticon (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We did post a blurb for Betty White [2] (also Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/January 2022), which generally was seen as a problem long after the event. Which is why we have become far more careful and heavily debate about blurbs for celebrities, where fame clouds "major figure" issues (a reason why I push for discussion of legacy or impact as to be able to separate those that really should be blurbed from the more popular ones) Masem (t) 12:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: "We did post a blurb for Betty White, which generally was seen as a problem long after the event." You also once said that the Carrie Fisher + Debbie Reynolds blurb back in 2016 has since been retroactively deemed as a mistake, yet I've never personally seen anyone else describe it that way; the same is true for Betty White. Are there ITN discussions about old death blurbs that I'm not aware of? Kurtis (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those is that they drew a lot of non-regular !voters supporting the posting of the blurb based primarily on popularity and fame. Its not that we should dismiss non-regular !votes, but when they flood a discussion with a reason that is not one of the general allowances we have for RDBlurbs, that's disruptive to the process, and that's why we end up nowadays with some much consternation around RDBlurbs. Masem (t) 17:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... they flood a discussion with a reason that is not one of the general allowances we have for RDBlurbs ...: No, there's not much guidance on acceptable reasons at WP:ITNSIGNIF:

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken the RDBLURB guidance to override or specifically tune ITNSIGNIF for RD blurbs given it is on a separate guideline page, and particularly that we have the sui generis aspect to cover what may be considered a major figure. But regardless of what guideline applies, clearly have had lots of long-standing issues that when a popular person dies, we get floods of non-regulars !voting without considering other ITN guidance like ITNATA. We have that at times with non-RD blurb nominations too, but that's far less of an issue. Masem (t) 14:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but sui generis isn't any more objective. Any "long-standing issues" are sure to remain barring any community consensus to improve the process. —Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb Absolutely not, per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2025-2026 Alberta independentist crisis

SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2025-2026 Alberta independentist crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A diplomatic crisis ensues following the discovery of secret meetings between Albertan separatists and US officials. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-alberta-independence-canada-separatists-b2910227.html
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Ongoing political crisis between the United States and Canada over secret talk by the US with a separatist movement in Alberta, the APP. Another evolution in Canadian-US relations which is sure to have effects, and had already a strong reaction by Canadian officials. Details are coming out over the hours, and the article groups most that is known, focusing mostly on the crisis itself.

15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a nomination made to raise awareness of an article, presumably. EF5 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Authored by another user, I suppose it was meant to be a reply to them then. Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove from ongoing: 2025–2026 Iranian protests

Article: 2025–2026 Iranian protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: On the prior nomination, numerous editors in opposition(myself included) indicated we should wait a few more days. It has been over a week now, and no substantive updates have occurred, and no reliable reporting on recent events has been published. Articles are still being written, but they are covering events long in the past. It's possible the protests are ongoing or were quashed two weeks ago, but there is little reason to believe the information blackout that has sustained this long will break. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still generating front page news though, as in this announcement that the EU were to designate the IRGC a terrorist organisation. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Black Kite and scope of the protests, including death toll. There is the ICE operation (and protests), both in ongoing, and just two guys are dead (that woman and the man this week) vs. hundreds killed and others executed in Iran. CoryGlee 12:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EU designation, Trump bringing a second fleet and demanding Iran take action. It might have moved beyond the protests but this is clearly still in the news, and the article is including these additional updates, just not in the timeline section of that article. Masem (t) 12:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the 3 comments above. See the International reactions section of the article; the summary of 2026 Iranian diaspora protests could maybe get a bit more content. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – Sentences and sections are still being added daily. On the one hand I like the idea of giving Ongoing a faster turn-over, but on the hand there's a bunch of articles on Ongoing that are way less active than this one. It looks to be a fine feature still, for now. The improvements and additions look good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per same reasons stated in previous discussion; the EU designating the IRCG as a terrorist group is not especially notable, and Trump threatening other nations happens often enough at this point. The protests themselves may still be ongoing, but on a much smaller scale compared to when this was first posted to "Ongoing". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support removal as the previous nominator. I already thought it was overdue for removal when I nominated it and it is even more so now. Even the article itself (as of today) shows the protests having been quelled and the later parts of the timeline focus on the fallout. If we really need to keep this up just because of the protest fallout (which most opponents are implying), this also needs to be renamed to something like "Iran Crisis". --SpectralIon 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. Unfortunately still in the news daily and getting updates in part because of Trump’s actions and also because of the Iranian government. Agreed with Masem, Black Kite, and CoryGlee. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as in prior discussion. The protests themselves are over and have been for a while now. Trump's "armada" is only loosely related to the protests. Trump's main goal is to force Iran into an agreement on its nuclear program, despite his occasional claims to care about the protesters. The EU's designation is not notable by itself. "Terrorist" designations get thrown around rather frequently. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    EvansHallBear – it is NOTAFORUM. Whether Trump wants to force Iran into whatever or not... is not to discuss here. Though I agree with your "terrorist" comment, that's a frivolous term, just imagine that some see Hamas as resistance fighters. So, I agree with the subjectivity of the label. CoryGlee 21:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors brought up the Trump armada and it is mentioned in the protest article. So it's completely in scope to question how directly it relates to the currently suppressed protests. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With international coverage of Iranian crackdowns continuing, even since this nomination was made, it's still too soon. If anything there's more coverage of this, @GreatCaesarsGhost, than there was at the time of the previous nomination that literally just fell off this page! Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the nomination, many of the opposes votes were actually "wait" votes, and were over a week old when the prior nom fell off. I was one of them, so I'm not pushing for this strongly. But I do think we should move the target, because it seems the protests in Iran themselves have been over for quite a long time. Protest occurring elsewhere and US sabre-rattling seems to be a distinct story. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to nominate that article for posting. But this is about the 2025–2026 Iranian protests. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are Iranian. They are protesting. The article was literally split off 2025–2026 Iranian protests a couple of weeks ago because of size limitations, @Coffeeandcrumbs. Nfitz (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article was split off, meaning that the ongoing's scope now only applies to protests in Iran itself (which have ended). If you want to talk about diaspora protests, nominate it to be added. SpectralIon 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it was split off because it was a separate subject, I think that may be a valid point. But it was split off because of page size. I generally oppose multiple links in ongoing; I feel we should be able to do most ongoings with only one or two words. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So this article supposedly still relates to the diaspora protests and will be ongoing as long as they are despite it containing virtually no information on them just because the diaspora protests were split off due to a certain reason? SpectralIon 19:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 29

Diori Hamani International Airport attack

Proposed image
Diori Hamani International Airport
Article: Diori Hamani International Airport attack (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Islamic State attacks the Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An attack on the Diori Hamani International Airport in Niger kills 20 people.
Alternative blurb II: ​ An attack perpetrated by the Islamic State on the Diori Hamani International Airport (pictured) in Niamey, Niger, results in 20 attackers dead.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Large scale attack on the capital of Niger. Might need a little exanding. JaxsonR (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support when ready article needs expanding but i think this is significant enough Ion.want.uu (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose current blurbs Major-scale attack by IS. Tho I think it's still unclear how many people were killed aside from the 20 IS militants, therefore having the blurb said that the attacks "kills 20 people" implies that the IS is the one who killed others and not vice-versa. NotKringe (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – meets quality, meets international criteria, and surpasses other events featured in the portal with only 2 or 3 deaths of very localised events. CoryGlee 14:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb II Better explained. ArionStar (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality--missing background context and important reactions. Departure– (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need a reactionsoup section? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When the head of state of Niger blames an attack on neighboring countries, it should be mentioned. I didn't mean a million " A country half the globe away expressed condolences". I also don't see mentions of the substantial amounts of uranium stored at the airport, per the sources I've seen. Departure– (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources about the uranium? JaxsonR (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a paragraph on the uranium in the cited Al Jazeera article linked in the nom template. Departure– (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative blurb II the fact that the only 20 deaths are those of the perpetrators is an important distinction to make B3251(talk) 22:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a reactions and background section per the request of other editors. JaxsonR (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2 Per NotKringe, this meets notability because it is a major-scale attack by IS upon a international airport that's situated within a national capital. As for the quality, the article appears to be sufficiently sourced and expanded enough for posting on ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This event took place 29 January 2026, so I've moved it to the appropriate date. Departure– (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commnet - "An attack perpertrated" seems tautological and the use of "perpertrated" is unnecessary. Why use the Wiki-voice to assign one side the bad guy role when just saying "An attack by the Islamic State" is just as good, concise and sufficient. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kai Budde

Article: Kai Budde (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [5] [6]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: MTG World Champion who died of cancer after a long battle. Not super partial to the death but I noticed it while looking at the news for ITN. Normalman101 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs some work damn, I haven’t played MTG and kept up with it in the better part of 2 decades, but I still remember tossing around this name. Seeing him on ITNC rocked me a bit more than I expected. His article needs a bit of sourcing work, but will be happy to reconsider when that’s done. RIP. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

RD: Diógenes Quintero

Article: Diógenes Quintero (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Noticias RCN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: As suggested by Moscow Mule. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kōzō Shioya

Article: Kōzō Shioya (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2026-01-28/dragon-ball-majin-buu-voice-actor-kozo-shioya-dies-at-71/.233561
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese voice actor most known as the voice of Majin Buu from Dragon Ball; died on the 20th but only announced by his agency on Wednesday. Needs a ton of referencing work; update is sparse and only in the lead of the article, not the body. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 20:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Withdrawn) RD: Chung Sanghwa

Withdrawing. Appears that the refs may be AI generated, and the article needs to be fixed up. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Chung Sanghwa (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Well cited, looks ready to go. Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality – what are most of the sources? Books? Magazines? News articles subject to any ISSN or archive web? Ref #32 cites an ISBN (book) but no page. It needs to be clear there. Not saying it is unreliable, just asking what are those refs. CoryGlee 04:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this 2023 diff, where almost all of the current article was rewritten and most current sources were added. My AI slop radar is buzzing strongly here... Also, the editor that added this info seems to have a pretty bad track record with quality, gauging from their contributions. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SATENA Flight 8849

Article: SATENA Flight 8849 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ 15 people are killed in a plane crash near Cúcuta, Colombia. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A plane crash in Colombia leaves 15 people dead.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Colombia, SATENA Flight 8849 crashes and kills 15 people.
Alternative blurb III: ​ SATENA Flight 8849 crashes in Norte de Santander, Colombia, killing 15 people.
News source(s): BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera.
Credits:

 Robert Motecinos Holda (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on notability, but oppose on quality It has a double-digit casualty rate, but information is still quite relatively scarce. Kknnkj (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2026
  • Support on notability as a major commercial plane crash, but quality is not ready for posting yet. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:44, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality. The crash is the deadliest this year and has been reported on internationally, but not much details are known right now other than it crashed into terrain. Once the article is expanded, I will change my vote. Changing my vote to weak oppose as not much is known about the crash and it will likely be forgotten soon. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there's a lot of the year left to go. Jahaza (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with others that this isn't that notable. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 (which I've updated to match present tense) — The crash of a scheduled commercial flight with over a dozen fatalities is notable. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 The reality which everyone in the room knows but does not want to acknowledge is that this would be posted if it crashed just outside of London or New York City. Fatal crashes of scheduled passenger airline flights are rare, and typically enact a significant investigation and changes. Contrary to the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS and WP:OTHERSTUFF nonsense above, we've also posted both fatal weather events with roughly 15 deaths (typhoons, hurricanes, etc) and fatal crashes (e.g. the Philadelphia crash) numerous times in the past. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 07:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You really should read the pages you link to. OTHERSTUFF is an essay about delete discussions. MINIMUMDEATHS is a cheeky essay that does pretend to reflect consensus, but even it does not make the ludicrous argument that death counts are irrelevant to the significance of a mass casualty event. You also appear to have linked CIVILITY in your signature. That one actually is a policy, and says you should refrain from making personal attacks and assume good faith unless there is strong evidence to the contrary. I believe you are wrong about everyone in the room not wanting to acknowledge reality, but there is zero evidence to support your accusation. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In no way was this a personal attack, nor was it targeted at anyone, GCG. The thrust of my point was to say “systemic bias on Wikipedia is an uncomfortable reality to discuss, and here is why I think systemic bias is affecting this nomination”. That isn’t a personal attack… WP:AGF, since we are passive aggressively linking policies to read. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A plane crash outside NYC or London in which a serving member of congress/parliament was killed. Yes, systemic bias, but that doesn't take away from (indeed, is largely the reason for) the fact that the crash article is still, two days later, dismal. And I also doubt a RD nomination for Diógenes Quintero would be deemed fit for the Main Page (and the fact that no one has made such a nomination is also eloquent). Moscow Mule (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that you mention it... Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's nothing intrinsically more important about an air crash that kills 15 than a bus crash or train crash with the same number of fatalities. The article is short and gives no indication of any wider implications. This seems notable enough to have an article, but not significant enough to merit an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 12:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Why automatically we assume we would not post a bus or train crash which garnered 15 casualties, if it was garnering significant news coverage? As far as I recall, we have, multiple times. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Let's debunk the idea that many people have of turning this into Disasterpedia. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt3 fatal air accident. Scuba 14:39, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would appear that the actual flight number was 8849; I've updated the blurbs accordingly. I have no opinion on posting. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 14:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support On the precedent that previous air nominations such as the Med Jets Flight and the UPS Airlines Flight from last year (both of which I would have supported nomination of) did ended up getting posted, I believe this should too. This crash was mentioned in the news by both the BBC and ABC Australia, which does give additional qualifications for the posting. Whilst I do agree with EF5 above that the winter storm likely should have been posted too, I oppose the notion that we shouldn't post this just because its another disaster and that people will call this section "Disasterpedia". CaptainGalaxy 13:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this has become Disasterpedia, and it is clearly evident in the insistence on nominating disasters that occur and the low threshold for considering them ITN-worthy. Mistake after mistake. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. Article is shorter than the references section. If there isn't enough detail in all that coverage to flesh this out, maybe we don't even need an article. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ajit Pawar

Article: Ajit Pawar (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Reuters, Associated Press
Credits:

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

 Lekhak93 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I literally linked it above. 2026 Baramati Learjet 45 crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between national and state here is kind of arbitrary given that Maharashtra has more than 3 times the population of Ghana. Jahaza (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahaza because Ghana is a sovereign state and Maharashtra isn't. That's a pretty important distinction. The Kip (contribs) 19:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But from a perspective of influence and notability it is relevant that Maharashtra is larger than 90% of countries. He was also president of his recently split party. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My own state has a population and economy comparable to some countries, but outside of extreme circumstances I would never support blurbing anything to do with my state government. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

(needs attentionw) RD: Richie Beirach

Article: Richie Beirach (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Jazztimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Jazz pianist, born in Manhattan, great as soloist, duo, trio, made iconic recordings. Many have an article. Later teaching in Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems good enough. Though I feel like the releases with wikipedia articles should still have citations on them too. Though, maybe that's not how it works. Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to add them, - I bet they are on the AllMusic citation, and if not in their articles. Reviews would also br good, but I'm out for the day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Shirley Raines

Article: Shirley Raines (non-profit founder) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post The Independent
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Looks like the article needs some work before a feature on the Main Page (finding better citations & expanding them, mostly). Staraction (talk · contribs) 01:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose: I think the big block of text sourced from Facebook is unnecessary seeing as Facebook is an unreliable source. There's also a CN tag in the body. Should be a really easy fix. --The Robot Parade 18:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Doomsday Clock

Snow-close. Consensus in favour of posting is extremely unlikely. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Doomsday Clock (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds before midnight, the closest it has been to midnight, due to rising global tensions. (Post)
News source(s): AP, BBC, CNN, France 24,
Credits:

Article updated
Nominator's comments: one unsourced statement on the recent change but the table has this source. Masem (t) 18:13, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems to be fearmongering. JaxsonR (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - Most of the stories posted on ITN make it clear the world is in a precarious position, and many are skeptical of the current methodology of the Doomsday Clock. The Vital One (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't even mean anything, they literally make up the doomsday clock's time. Scuba 20:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose as arbitrary alarmist garbage. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is just not important/serious enough for ITN. Tradediatalk 20:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article could use some work to better explain the existential threats but their number is certainly growing and the powers-that-be seem increasingly foolish in exacerbating them. This is the closest to the end that the warning has ever been set and it's in the news. Do you people not want to live? We report all these deaths and do you think it can't happen to you? And it's not as if there isn't space to spare. We've been blurbing a dressmaker for over a week now! Andrew🐉(talk) 22:51, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability Per The Vital One, I am also skeptical about the usage of the Doomsday Clock. The Doomsday Clock just seems like a glorified, ceremonial way to tell countries around the world not to move toward nuclear war. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting tidbit but overall subjective fluff.  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  02:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, in the interests of stymying alarmism. The Doomsday Clock is a noteworthy risk index, but its inclusion on the Main Page could serve to fan the flames of discontent, which is something I think Wikipedia should avoid where feasible. Kurtis (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: David Abulafia

Article: David Abulafia (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Telegraph, Times (obituaries)
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British historian and commentator.  Sandstein 13:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet ready as per Bagumba. Several claims are unsourced. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1336364133"