Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

RD: Jenni Murray

Nominator's comments: English journalist and broadcaster Nessiecalls (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

RD: Jordan Wright

Nominator's comments: English television personality Nessiecalls (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Cesar Chavez sexual abuse

Article: Cesar Chavez (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United States, celebrations and honors of labor and civil rights activist Cesar Chavez are canceled and removed following revelations of child sexual abuse by him (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the United States, revelations of child sexual abuse by Cesar Chavez trigger the removal and cancellation of honors and celebrations in his name.
News source(s): NYT, LA Times, WaPo, The Guardian, La Jornada, El Pais, Toronto Star, BBC, France24, CBC, The Atlantic
Credits:

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Ed Poor (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Wiki vj20 (talk · give credit), SebastianJFromTheBurg (talk · give credit), Pkoroly (talk · give credit), Firefox0807 (talk · give credit) and BumbleBeeBelle (talk · give credit)

Article updated

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)

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)

RD/Blurb: Chuck Norris

Article: Chuck Norris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American actor and mixed-martial artist Chuck Norris (pictured) dies at age 86. (Post)
News source(s): NYT, Variety
Credits:

• Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit), TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit), Joe Vitale 5 (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)

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)
• 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.

~2026-17182-02 (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. The Kip ^(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)

• 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. Flip^andFlopped 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)

• 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)

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)

  Can you, @Bzweebl, point to the list you are referring to? He's literarily 1 of the 75 people listed on WP:Vital articles/Level 5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Television actors; many of which are already dead. Nfitz (talk) 17:42, 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)

  Then that's a debate for WT:Vital articles/Level 5/People/Creative and cultural figures. If that hasn't been dealt with in the many, many, years before they die then they aren't notable enough to blurb. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 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)

  Pretty much all of Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 127 which initiated from Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 126#Proposal: deaths of V4-level people Masem (t) 19:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb WP: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)

  How, @Tofusaurus, is a person who is listed at WP:Vital articles/Level 5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters#Television actors an insignificant rando? Surely by definition he's very significant. But is he significant enough - that's the debate. Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 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.

Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: He's talking about the blurb proposal. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:03, 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)

@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. --Torsodog^Talk 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.

NotKringe (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

RD: Patriarch Filaret

Nominator's comments: Longterm Metropolitan of Kyiv and Exarch of Ukraine, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kyiv Patriarchate Skoropadsky (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support if the single cn can be addressed. Yakikaki (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Weak support there'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)

(Closed) 2020s American renouncement of allies

(Closed) RD: Alvin Greene

RD: Saleh Mohammadi

Nominator's comments: Executed Iranian wrestler. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

• A bit short, and seems to fail WP:1E. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:27, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

King Charles III England Coast Path

Article: King Charles III England Coast Path (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In England, the longest coastal footpath in the world is opened by King Charles III. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independent, Sky News
Credits:

• Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Hogyn Lleol (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Dave.Dunford (talk · give credit), Rwood128 (talk · give credit), Mhockey (talk · give credit), ~2026-17169-60 (talk · give credit) and Mmberney (talk · give credit)

Article updated

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)

• Support Notable and interesting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems like local trivia, as opposed to a substantive event with in-depth global news coverage. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 02:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Flipandflopped. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:05, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Path has been "opened", but is not yet completed. --Jahaza (talk) 04:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  Ah interested point. The Trans Canada Trail was similar in that it was opened long before it was finished. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 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)

• 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)

Abel Prize

Articles: Abel Prize (talk · history · tag) and Gerd Faltings (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The 2026 Abel Prize is awarded to Gerd Faltings for "introducing powerful tools in arithmetic geometry and resolving long-standing diophantine conjectures of Mordell and Lang." (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In mathematics, Gerd Faltings is awarded the Abel Prize for work in arithmetic geometry.
News source(s): NYtimes
Credits:

• Nominated by Fdfexoex (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Hanche (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)

Article updated
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.

 Fdfexoex (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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 Genius ^talk 19:02, 19 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)

• Support All the tag-bombing has been cleared. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 19 March 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)

  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. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

RD: Michael Bambang Hartono

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)

RD: Nicholas Haysom

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)

RD: Esmaeil Khatib

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)

What say we have "Iranian officials" piped to list of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war in the recent deaths section, to be taken off when the situation cools down? Bremps... 20:01, 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)

RD: Mike Clampitt

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)

Turing Award

Articles: Charles H. Bennett (physicist) (talk · history · tag) and Gilles Brassard (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Charles H. Bennett (left) and Gilles Brassard (right) are awarded the 2025 Turing Award for their work in quantum information science. (Post)
News source(s): ACM(official), New York Times, The Globe and Mail
Credits:

• Nominated by Dmartin969 (talk · give credit)
• Created by 66.30.207.207 (talk · give credit)

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.

 –DMartin (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• 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. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Lots of orange tags on Bennett's article. Needs work. Modest Genius ^talk 18:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  There's been no improvement in the last 24 hours. Modest Genius ^talk 19:04, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

RD: Rainelle Krause

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)

  @QuicoleJR, I heavily expanded the article, it should be decent enough now. A.Classical-Futurist (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support Article quality is now sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) 2026 March Madness (Ongoing)

RD: Shigeaki Mori

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)

RD: Mark McLane

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)

(Posted) 2026 World Baseball Classic

Article: 2026 World Baseball Classic championship game (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Venezuela defeats the United States to win the World Baseball Classic. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The World Baseball Classic concludes with Venezuela defeating the United States for the championship (MVP Maikel García pictured).
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the World Baseball Classic, Venezuela defeats the United States in the final.
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
• Created by DukeOfDelTaco (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Publicwalrus (talk · give credit) and DukeOfDelTaco (talk · give credit)

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 Added altblurb in line with last posting in 2023.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support I'm not familiar with this event and so feel the lead could use more explanation and context such as Why the World Baseball Classic means so much to USA but it's a reasonable start. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 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)

    FWIW, baseball had just as the same number of page views vs. cricket... I know page views isn't importance, but some English speakers cared. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:51, 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)
• @1brianm7 and GreatCaesarsGhost: I have added some prose on the Maduro raid and a little more to the game summary. I'll note that prose size is almost the same as 2023 World Baseball Classic championship game, which was posted. I'm sure there will be more aftermath to add today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support altblurb I'd be prepared to call this ready. –DMartin (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• Posted Rough consensus that it's ready. 2026 World Baseball Classic championship game § United States–Venezuela relations appears to address geopolitcal concern and WP:ITNQUALITY re: minimally comprehensive overview of the subject.—Bagumba (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ilia II of Georgia

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)

Comment I think it is ready. Romanov loyalist (talk) 18:09, 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)

• Posted – Schwede66 03:07, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) 2025 AFCON final overturned

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. Flip^andFlopped 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)

• That's in 2025 Africa Cup of Nations which isn't the article being blurbed (I've made that clearer now). Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 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)
• Support in 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final, the news has been split into a separate paragraph and everything appears sourced now. We don't need to worry about 2025 Africa Cup of Nations although that has been updated as well. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 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)

• Departure– The Kip Are you looking at the right article? There are no tags on 2025 Africa Cup of Nations final. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 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. The Kip ^(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)

• 2025_Africa_Cup_of_Nations_final#Reversal_of_result. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: What happens if the CAS overturns the CAF appeals board's decision? Would we blurb that again?  Bait30  ^{Talk 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 Genius ^talk 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)
• Posted – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

RD/blurb: Ali Larijani

Article: Ali Larijani (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, is killed in an Israeli airstrike. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Iranian politician and military leader Ali Larijani is killed in an Israeli airstrike.
News source(s): Al Jazeera
Credits:

• Nominated by Stunts1990 (talk · give credit)

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)
• Oppose blurb Ongoing exists for a reason. We cannot blurb everyone at list of Iranian officials killed during the 2026 Iran war. Gotitbro (talk) 04:54, 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)

1. CNN: "the country’s de facto leader Ali Larijani also perished"
2. NYT: "Ali Larijani, Iran’s De Facto Political Leader, Killed by Israel"
3. Reuters: " Iran's most influential powerbroker"; Reuters 2: "one of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic"

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)

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)

• Oppose RD on quality issues. Oppose blurb per above + covered by ongoing item. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:25, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
• There are two orange tags in the article; they must be resolved before this goes anywhere. Schwede66 03:03, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Xi-cc-plus

Article: Xi baryon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Xi-cc-plus baryon, which is a double-charmed proton, is detected for the first time by the Large Hadron Collider (pictured). (Post)
News source(s): France 24, Guardian, New Scientist, The Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by ~2026-16798-00 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

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 Genius ^talk 12:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  PS. see also the long list of other baryons that were discovered by the same experiment LHCb_experiment#Hadron_spectroscopy. Modest Genius ^talk 15:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Maiduguri bombings

Nominator's comments: Nigerian terrorist attack. More than 130 casualties. Somewhat stubby. — Knightoftheswords 16:04, 17 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)

Putting it on ITN would help with…reducing stubbyness. 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 reduce stubbyness. The quality requirements must be met before posting. WP:ITNQUALITY says:

Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page.

Left 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. Flip^andFlopped 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. The Kip ^(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)

(Posted RD) RD: Len Deighton

Nominator's comments: Article became FA in 2023. While I would love to see Deighton blurbed, I don't think it would be appropriate. If we didn't blurb le Carré (which I think we should have done), then Deighton falls into the same category. SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 17 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)

  There's no necessity to wait a few months; that idea of an arbitrary and rigid time frame was dismissed by an RfC: Using non-free biographical images of persons immediately after death. I was thinking of adding one in this case but you can go first, per After you, Claude, if you like. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:45, 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 Genius ^talk 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. Spencer^T•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)

RD: Kiki Shepard

Nominator's comments: Showtime at the Apollo cohost - filmography probably needs sourcing wizzito | say hello! 16:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

• Almost ready Just needs some citations in the filmography and then it can be posted. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

RD: E. Grady Jolly

Nominator's comments: American federal judge. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Cuban electrical grid failure

Nominator's comments: I know the Cuban crisis has been nominated before without posting and I know then I opposed because there was no clear event to make it significant. This is very muchba clear event that would be appropriate to post now. Masem (t) 16:47, 17 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)

• 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. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 02:27, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

(Closed) Venezuela defeats Italy in the World Baseball Classic

(Posted) 2026 Kabul airstrike

Nominator's comments: Its a stub right, and just happended around an hour ago, but 400 deaths is insane. JaxsonR (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong support on notability, although we can work on making the article more than a stub. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:15, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Im honestly going to remove these orange tags... not sure how someone thinksthis is notable. JaxsonR (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Thinks this is not notable* my bad! JaxsonR (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Support on quality now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:36, 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. The Kip ^(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. The Kip ^(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)

  I was talking about recent UNAMA and Taliban figures (which appear to largely match) from recent incidents such as the 2022 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan, 2024 Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan, 2025 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict etc. Gotitbro (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - Just getting there in size. Should it be noted who (Pakistan) conducted the airstrikes in the blurb? ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 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)

  @Schwede66: 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)

  @Schwede66: 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)

(Posted) RD: David Keene

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced. Death announced via NYT on this date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Support article looks good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Madagascar PM

Nominator's comments: Not head of state, but notable change post-coup and ex-PM ouster. Psephguru (talk) 13:04, 16 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. The Kip ^(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)

(Ready) 2026 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict (Ongoing)

Nominator's comments: Major ongoing conflict; largely overshadowed by the war in Iran but the article is still receiving substantive daily updates as clashes continue. DecafPotato (talk) 02:48, 16 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. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 02:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support per all above. The Kip ^(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)

@Admins willing to post ITN: — Knightoftheswords 03:10, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) Academy Awards

Article: 98th Academy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Academy Awards, One Battle After Another wins Best Picture, with its director Paul Thomas Anderson (pictured) winning Best Director. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Academy Awards, One Battle After Another wins six Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director (Paul Thomas Anderson, pictured).
News source(s): USA Today
Credits:

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

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: Appears to be ready to go, only missing information related to viewership and reception which is not expected until tomorrow Masem (t) 02:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Article looks good to go. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• We can tweak a bit, At the Academy Awards, One Battle After Another wins six Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Director (Paul Thomas Anderson pictured --Tone 06:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe apart from reception, looks good to me. thejiujiangdragon 🔥🐉 12:07, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support Looks good AndrewGarfieldIsTheBestSpiderMan (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• @Admins willing to post ITN: Natg 19 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
• Posted ALT1. Schwede66 21:23, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

(Ready) Kazakh constitutional referendum

Nominator's comments: Kazakhs have voted for a new constitution, said to strengthen the power of the president. The article looks nice. — Knightoftheswords 01:51, 16 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 quality if Constitution of Kazakhstan isn't linked, now that the results have been added, although the discrepancy in numbers (counting the "Yes" and "No" as either percentages of valid votes or total votes) should ideally be addressed. A two-part table like at 2026 Bangladeshi constitutional referendum#Results is more helpful to convey this, in my opinion. I've removed the two banner photos due to unclear copyright status, see also freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan on Commons. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:20, 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. The Kip ^(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 Chaotic Enby and The Kip 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. @Admins willing to post ITN: tagged ready. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 02:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

(Posted) 2026 Republic of the Congo presidential election

Article: 2026 Republic of the Congo presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Denis Sassou Nguesso (pictured) is proclaimed the winner of the 2026 Republic of the Congo presidential election with 94.82% of the vote (Post)
News source(s):
Credits:

• Nominated by Scu ba (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Borgenland (talk · give credit) and CastleFort1 (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
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.