Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
| Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here – discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header (dark green when in dark mode) appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
All articles featured in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. Nomination steps[edit]
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.
Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Structure
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
October 6
[edit]|
October 6, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Health and environment
Law and crime
Science and technology
|
Completion of Paramount/Warner Bros acquisition
[edit]Blurb: Paramount Skydance completes its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery in a deal valued at $110 billion, becoming Skydance Corporation. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Acquisition article titile expected to be updated soon. This is the completion of the deal, all attempts to stop it have been resolved. Masem (t) 13:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support if the deal has been signed and sealed. Its ups and downs, upon completion, would seem notably mentionable for the main page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The first thing to do would be to move Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance to Acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance before featuring any of this on the main page. Gotitbro (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- which is a pending move request on its talk page. Masem (t) 17:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Also Paramount in the blurb above should be changed to Paramount Skydance. I also wonder if David Ellison figures a mention (Skydance and this acquisition being his creation). Gotitbro (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- dont think we need to call him out, getting a bit into the RGW area to make sure his name is associated with this. Maaaybe for the image, but not otherwise. Masem (t) 19:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Also Paramount in the blurb above should be changed to Paramount Skydance. I also wonder if David Ellison figures a mention (Skydance and this acquisition being his creation). Gotitbro (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- which is a pending move request on its talk page. Masem (t) 17:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Clearly notably big news. Let’s (hopefully) come to consensus once it’s moved and post it. Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Nobel physics
[edit]Blurb: Francis Halzen is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in neutrino astronomy. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)
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.
Psephguru (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Almost ready The birth date and the 1994 award need citations. CastleFort1 (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support once ready. A Nobel Prize winner for a major scientific discovery discoverer. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I have a borderline CoI here, so won't !vote or edit the article. I will say that I've surprised how little the article says about his research, and that it doesn't cite any of his papers. The Nobel committee's detailed explanation is a useful source, which identifies the most important discoveries made by Halzen and his IceCube Collaboration. Modest Genius talk 19:00, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Quebec general election
[edit]Blurb: In the Canadian province of Quebec, the seperatist Parti Québécois, led by Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, wins the most seats in the National Assembly. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Schetm (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Raellerby (talk · give credit), Muaza Husni (talk · give credit), Asclepias (talk · give credit), Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit) and Punker85 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The PQ has triumphed in the Quebec elections. This marks a major political development after years of percipitous decline; in the last election in 2022, they won so little that they were believed to have been relegated to a fringe party, while the ruling CAQ seemed stronger than ever. Now the PQ (and Quebec separatism) has had a renaissance while the CAQ has collapsed. Considering that the PQ ran on a platform of having another independence referendum, this is a major deal in Canadian politics. A reminder that one of the few subnational elections we posted- the 2022 NI elections- was posted for similar reasons (a separatist party finally winning the most seats, which I've also heard is the standard for some folks here regarding subnationals as a whole as indicated by this discussion). Also, Canada's a federal country, so I think this should be posted based on that as well. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 03:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- COMMENT note that although the PQ did not win a majority (59 seats with 64 needed for a majority), the Marixst Québec solidaire party won nine seats, and they are also separatists, which means that they could ally with the PQs to force an independence referendum. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 05:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a subnational election where a longstanding political party made a comeback from being in opposition, to winning a minority government. That happens frequently across the world; it should not be ITN-worthy every time. I also disagree with the comparison to the 2022 NI example. Northern Ireland 2022 was the first election in which the separatist/nationalist party ever won a plurality in the Northern Ireland legislature. By comparison, the PQ is a frequent flier in Quebec politics and has won repeated elections in 1976, 1981, 1994, 1998, and 2012. For NPOV reasons, I'm not sure I agree that we should be so quick to frame this as "groundbreaking", "watershed", "fringe redemption" etc and elevate it to main page/ITN level significance. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
a frequent flier in Quebec politics
; they've essentially not won an election since the 1990s; the exception of 2012 was a very weak minority that had a bunch of extraneous factors, while overall, they've had a pretty major electoral decline from their heyday under Parizeau and Levesque. The last election in 2022 saw them win only three seats and they were widely written off as having essentially become an anachronistic fringe party, with the CAQ filling in the main role of Quebec nationalism. Henceforth, this sudden revival (and collapse of the less separatist CAQ, who were once viewed as becoming a permanent fixture of QC politics), which, although not entirely, is at least partially coming off the back of renewed separatist sentiment in Quebec, is making the waves and will have an impact on Canadian politics. Also as I've since stated, even with a minority, the QS is also seperatist, so the possibility of an independence referendum is still possible. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 05:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support Subnational elections have been posted before, it just needs to be connected to some sort of notable event. 2019 Hong Kong local elections were connected to the Hong Kong protests, the 2025 Greenlandic election was connected to the Greenland crisis, while the 2022 Northern Ireland elections were posted due to a separatist party winning first place. I will say that Quebec's election does have some sort of notable tie to it, namely both Quebec separatism and the recent American advances upon Canadian affairs. CastleFort1 (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The recent and similar Wales elections were not posted (all with a historic Labor loss and a pro-independence win). This is poorer still, Parti Québécois (which
has also promoted the possibility of maintaining a loose political and economic sovereignty-association between Quebec and Canada
) is a regular winner and traditionally forms the government. The Coalition Avenir Québec, which lost, was actually split-off from PQ in the first place and is also "Quebec nationalist" (of which the Quebec sovereignty movement is a subset).
- The election article also says this
Plamondon would become Premier-designate of Quebec, but fall short of a majority government that had been predicted in the polls.
- This is an expected subnational election without any wider implication or significance. Mere "sovereignist" subnational parties winning elections is not an automatic meeting of WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE (look no further than Scotland). Gotitbro (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- As stated above, the PQ have only briefly held government once since the golden age of Quebec separatism in the late 20th century; a weak minority government that preceded them reembarking on their path of becoming largely irrelevant in QC politics by 2022, so this is no longer a party that regularly forms government. And the CAQ was unique in that it pursued Quebec nationalism via a way of not promoting open separation, just doing a bunch of internal stuff to promote QC autonomy. The PQs are openly separatist (and the historic practice of promoting a potential loose association with the ROC has been dropped in favor of a more openly separatist platform by the PQs under PSPP). Also as I've since stated, even with a minority, the QS is also seperatist, so the possibility of an independence referendum is still possible. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 05:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- And that referendum, if it happens at all (WP:CRYSTAL), is what would be actually significant for ITN not routine subnational political squibbling. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, I do not think the Welsh election was nominated standalone. Curbon7 (talk) 07:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- As stated above, the PQ have only briefly held government once since the golden age of Quebec separatism in the late 20th century; a weak minority government that preceded them reembarking on their path of becoming largely irrelevant in QC politics by 2022, so this is no longer a party that regularly forms government. And the CAQ was unique in that it pursued Quebec nationalism via a way of not promoting open separation, just doing a bunch of internal stuff to promote QC autonomy. The PQs are openly separatist (and the historic practice of promoting a potential loose association with the ROC has been dropped in favor of a more openly separatist platform by the PQs under PSPP). Also as I've since stated, even with a minority, the QS is also seperatist, so the possibility of an independence referendum is still possible. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 05:16, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose subnational elections are never posted, and shouldn’t. Northern Ireland and Quebec are not the same type of subnational entities. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 06:49, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- not true West Bengal election was posted. Likewise NI and Quebec ARE the same type of subnational elections.Psephguru (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
not true West Bengal election was posted
- Never nominated and never posted. So incorrect. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- You're incorrect
- (And typically I would hold against this over the fact that it was a long time ago, but I don't think that matters since we're dealing with what for whatever reason is a widely pervasive attitude that even elections that have routine, substantial coverage with the potential for widespread ramifications shouldn't be even given a chance just because its a subnational jurisdiction) — Knightoftheswords(talk) 15:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- ?
- I was of course talking about the 2026 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election which were brought up in the Wales discussion to refute a posting of subnational elections with which I agree[d]. The 2011 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The West Bengal elections Psephguru was talking about was the 2011 one (I know because he's brought it up in the past); no one in the UK elections nom was talking about nominating the 2026 WB nom, just using it as an example. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- not true West Bengal election was posted. Likewise NI and Quebec ARE the same type of subnational elections.Psephguru (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support There's no rule to say that we cannot post sub-national elections. There was support for posting heavilly un-democratic elections Russian puppet states in occupied territories, opposition to posting elections in fully sovereign states such as Kosovo even though the vast majority of UN states recognise it; not posting this because "we don't post these" is just another equally arbitrary argument that has no merit. The article quality is good, Québec is a very large state with nearly 10 million inhabitants and is a culturally and linguistically seperate region with a vast degree of autonomy. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- the article needs a reactions and aftermath sections expansion. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Aftermath, yes, but lets not push too hard on reactions. Reactions only make sense if they are from people directly involved or directly impacted by the results and not a list of every possible comment made about the elections. Masem (t) 11:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- And the Russian "puppet state" elections were correctly pulled with significant opposition. Gotitbro (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- the article needs a reactions and aftermath sections expansion. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- oppose not erth shatterng like the rare local elections posted before. They have been in office before.Psephguru (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. ITN has generally avoided posting sub-national elections and I see no reason to change that here. If the PQ hold an independence referendum that might be worth posting; a normal provincial election is not. I would have opposed the 2022 Northern Ireland election too, if I had been around. Modest Genius talk 15:08, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Wait until government formation As I commented on the German state elections item recently, I am not opposed to posting subnational elections per se and believe each nominated election should always be discussed on its merits and quality. I merely think the PQ winning 'the most seats' in the election is less impactful for our readers than the formation of a new government in Quebec which will likely take place soon, noting the PQ did not attain a majority in its own right. Given this election marks the first since 1998 in which sovereigntist parties won a combined majority of seats in the National Assembly, I think we should revisit this item when a new government is formed so we can really consider the significance in full; for example, if there were an unprecedented formation of Quebec's first government led by pro-sovereigntist parties (i.e. the PQ and Quebec Solidaire) I would consider that to be definitely significant enough for ITN.Oppius Brutus (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, makes no sense to post this when Scottish elections are not posted, as a Scottish person. Sahaib (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I supported Scotland's elections being posted. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 17:41, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I would support if they actually passed a referendum, but simply winning enough seats to possibly do so is not enough for me. -- Kicking222 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I don't really lean one way or the other on this particular blurb, but we should collectively stop opposing things per "we didn't post this similar story that I thought we should have posted". Clearly a good number of us believe at least some subnational elections are blurbworthy sometimes, whether we're talking about Scottish or Welsh or Northern Irish elections, or last year's NYC election, or this year's German elections. If there's a subnational election you would've liked to see blurbed, it's better to support more similar blurbs instead of contributing to the precedent that "we don't do this at ITN, period." There have been many types of stories over the years that got added to the unwritten list of things we don't post because one or two such stories failed to get enough support & their supporters went onto oppose similar blurbs per recent precedent. Maybe we'd all be happier at ITN if we got into the habit of supporting more things in general, just a thought. I don't mind any of the other oppose rationales above, but I really think a lot of our problems are the result of decades of "if we didn't post X then we can't post Y"s accumulating into a big pile of precedent-based rules that most of us don't like but we feel powerless to change. Just !vote differently, that's the easiest way to change things. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
October 5
[edit]|
October 5, 2026 (Monday)
Armed conflicts
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
RD: Freddie Jackson
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by TheCorriynial (talk · give credit)
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: Its probably a bit short in the article and a few sources needed, but a brief time in the 1980s, alongside a few others, Freddie Jackson was one of R&B's biggest singers. Jackson had ten Billboard R&B number ones, including his biggest hit on the Billboard Hot 100 "You Are My Lady" and also well known for "Rock Me Tonight (For Old Times Sake)". He had some work in soundtracks as well. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Sam McDowell
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Spencer (talk · give credit)
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: Some areas need additional references and working on that. Good depth of coverage; referencing issues should be resolved. SpencerT•C 17:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Ilie Datcu
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by ~2026-53828-22 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Sebi1990TheSecond (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: Romanian professional footballer. ~2026-53828-22 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Tadeusz Lutak
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by ~2026-53828-22 (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: Poland's oldest man and WWII veteran. ~2026-53828-22 (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: George Fenton
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Jiewei Xiong (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: British composer for films and television, especially many BBC programmes Jiewei Xiong (talk) 11:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work Article is woefully underreferenced with many sections being completely unreferenced. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Jim Bakker
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Masem (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: Teleevangelist from the 1980s. Article seems in good shape. Masem (t) 03:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support, sufficient quality. CMD (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support, quality seems fine. Many of Bakker's major innovations in telemarketing and presentation of Christian television are still used in the industry. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support, Article is of sufficient quality Kampolama (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. GA. SpencerT•C 18:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Neil Andrew
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Ianblair23 (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: Australia federal politician and Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work, a bit promotional and a bit unsourced. CMD (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work Speaker of the House section CN tags. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Robert Kelker-Kelly
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit)
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. Died on Saturday, death announced this Monday. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready due to sourcing issues. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Nigeria military plane crash
[edit]Blurb: 32 people are killed when a military-owned ATR 42-500 crashes in Ondo State, Nigeria. (Post)
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Created by SignorPignolini (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Just MRT (talk · give credit) and Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: I'm aware we don't usually post military plane crashes, but with 32 fatalities this is the deadliest plane crash, civilian or military, in Nigeria since 2012. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now I feel the article is too short compared to what is usually posted. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD/blurb: Jeffrey Archer
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Best-selling author, Jeffrey Archer, dies on the eve of the publication of his final novel. (Post)Credits:
- Updated and nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kind Tennis Fan (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: English novelist and former politician. ItsShandog (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready Handful of uncited statements. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I concur with Masem and oppose blurb as just being a WP:VITAL article should not be automatic grounds for blurb consideration. Comment The main blurb reads like a a news story heading and the timing of his death is trivial at best. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support this is an incredibly detailed lengthy and comprehensive article, meets overall quality to post. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose It's pretty good, almost there, but I'd like to see the multiple CN tags fixed before posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb No indication of him having been a major figure. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 11:50, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - a famous novelist with numerous contributions to the literature world (see Template:Jeffrey Archer). MrCryptoNerd (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- - - BREAK - - Above votes were for RD before blurb was proposed. I really wish we would stop modifying the header like this, because I was confused that everyone had lost their minds. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb I'm proposing a blurb as the subject is classified as vital. That's presumably because of their successful writing but the rest of their life seems quite remarkable too. He based his works on his own life and dying on the eve of the release of his final novel is a characteristic plot twist. Kudos to Edwardx for taking the lead picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose RD not a ton of CNs, but several of them seem pretty contentious. Obviously oppose the blurb nomination. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality issues. Oppose blurb as no indication how he meets the "major figure", just because he was a politician and an author does not automatically make one a major figure. Not even any language in the article, much less a simple section to describe this. Masem (t) 11:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb: he wasn't transformative (or even original), so falls far short of the threshold for a blurb; the fact he's a vital article shows how debased and woeful our rating system is. Oppose RD at the moment because of the CN tags that are still present. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The problem isn't with the rating system. The problem is the continued attempts by certain editors to suggest it is material to our discussion here, despite being repeatedly told that nothing in its purpose suggests that. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The WP:VITALCRITERIA include
Notability: Individuals within the People section represent the pinnacles of their field with a material impact on the course of humanity...
. That's what people commonly understand by a "major figure" and it's specified more clearly than ITN's vague waffle about "sui generis". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:48, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The WP:VITALCRITERIA include
- The problem isn't with the rating system. The problem is the continued attempts by certain editors to suggest it is material to our discussion here, despite being repeatedly told that nothing in its purpose suggests that. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:58, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb. He may have sold a lot of books, but then many people have. The word "transformative" isn't applying any time soon to any of his works. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Another day, another derailing RDBLURB nom by Andrew with nothing to show for significance or rationale other than bizarre ruminations about internal enwiki article organization and notions of I like it. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strongly Support RD/Does not oppose blurb He's a widely read author. Transformative or not, he's a household name for English language literature aficionados. Varoon2542 (talk)
- Oppose RD until sourcing issues are addressed, Oppose blurb, I don't think he's a notable enough figure to warrant it. Suonii180 (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Brazilian election nom II: legislative and gubernatorial elections
[edit]Blurb: In Brazil, legislative elections see the Liberal Party win the most seats in both houses of the National Congress, while 17 of the 27 states holding gubernatorial elections see center-right parties come to power. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Knightoftheswords281 (talk · give credit)
- Created by CountO-14 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Migs005 (talk · give credit), Elecciones2k26 (talk · give credit), NotTheRealDiogoFaro (talk · give credit) and Victor R de Oliveira (talk · give credit)
Second article updated, first needs updating
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.
Nominator's comments: The results of the presidential were deemed insignificant for posting ATM due to the fact that it wasn't the final round. However, general elections, such as legislative ones, are ITNR, and they don't have to do a second round. Furthermore, said legislative elections are notable in that they're seeing the highest pluralities for the PL since the '88 constitution. A similar story exists with the gubbenorial elections (which I think we should post since Brazil is a federation), with the least amount of state elections heding off into runoffs since then. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Legislative elections are ITNR, not subnational ones. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Did I say otherwise? — Knightoftheswords(talk) 20:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- The gubernatorial elections are mentioned in the same blurb as the legislative elections. They are completely dispensable. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Did I say otherwise? — Knightoftheswords(talk) 20:13, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready - there is enough here beyond Bolsonaro v Lula that this might be blurbable. But the gubernatorial page is a stub with half the election results and no prose; and the "general election" page is mostly about Bolsonaro v Lula, with no discussion of who actually won enough seats in the Chamber of Deputies to govern. 121 of 513 seats isn't the type of majority that normally gets mentioned in a blurb. ~2026-39940-90 (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not Ready - I am a little leery of posting "17 states" when I don't know off the top of my head how many states are in Brazil. I assume that the number of states in Brazil is less than 30 based on that phrasing, but I would have to go look it up. Also, is that "17 more states will have center-right governors and/legislatures than before the election", or "17 total states will have center-right governments". When I looked at the general election article this morning I thought it was very focused on the president and left the legislative election undercovered. Among other things missing is any analysis of likely coalition formation: which parties are going to support Bolsonaro vs which will support Lula (vs which will oppose either). The gubernatorial election article is nowhere near ready to post. ~2026-48013-53 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Modified the blurb to address your concerns. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 03:43, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The general election is too much boilerplate about Brazilian elections generally and too little about this election. The gubernatorial is both lower significance and lower quality, and its addition here will be a drag on the nom and distraction to the discussion. Everyone loves to play iconoclast, but there is a reason we do things the way we do them here. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:24, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- The general election article almost exclusively discusses the presidential election. The legislative election is discussed on the "Congress" section and on 2 subsections in the "Results" section. If there's enough material the legislative elections can be its own separate article. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Wait not because the legislative part of the elections isn't ITNR (it is) but because this particular article puts the emphasis on the presidential part of the elections and will anyway be featured after the second round of those. If the legislative leg had a separate article, I would support posting that now, but in this commingled state, I would suggest to wait and post together with the results of the presidential election. Khuft (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
(Ready) Ongoing: 2026 Yemen offensives
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Setarip (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: The 2026 Yemen offensives have been getting consistent updates for a month now, and it doesn't seem to be stopping. The conflict is escalating with the PLC announcing the start of a massive military operation called Yemen Dawn and claimed to have taken out over a thousand. This conflict also caused the Bab al-Mandab Strait crisis, and Saudi Arabia might want to drag other nations in this war Setarip (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support This is becoming more of a focus in international news, and the offensives are ramping up as the nomination has stated. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support, regular updates, sees major ongoing developments with the PLC counteroffensive and the Houthi encirclement of Taiz. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Chaotic Enby. Good candidate for ongoing given the pace of updates as well as increasing coverage. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:11, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Didn't realize it wasn't up already. Along with the Iran war, this is the item receiving major global news coverage. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support Largest escalation of the Yemen civil war in years, made significant by the sheer scale of the conflict; involvement of multiple regional powers including Saudi Arabia and Iran sets the Bab al-Mandab crisis in parallel to the Straits of Hormuz crisis and the Iran war more broadly. Oppius Brutus (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Ongoing major event, sufficiently updated target article, sufficiently in the news topic. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:35, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dennis Hastert
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Iamstillqw3rty (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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: Disgraced Speaker of the House. Died this weekend, death announced this morning. qw3rty.exe ☎ 14:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support No glaring issues spotted from a quick readthrough. Well sourced article. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article looks good. Bye asshole. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support A B-class article, with no sourcing issues, centered around a pedocon who was elected as the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. An absolutely terrible person who committed gravely vile acts upon the youth, but when focusing on the article quality, it is still fine to post as an RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Well sourced article. Subject is sixth-longest serving speaker of the house and one of the highest-ranking US officials to serve a prison sentence. Yaris678 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article in really good shape. No sourcing issues. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support No major issues with the article quality-wise. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 03:37, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 18:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Nobel medicine
[edit]Blurb: Karl Deisseroth, Peter Hegemann and Georg Nagel are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work in optogenetics. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (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.
Psephguru (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't the established praxis to also make the the recipients target articles? CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, for Nobels it should be the award winners, not the list. All three have current problems with referencing (first two relying too much on their published papers) Masem (t) 11:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- My strategy in Nobel week euphoria is to remove the problematic sections and let the inflow of users write a proper one from scratch. This year i am travelling so I will not help as much as I usually can. ReyHahn (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- That's a good strategy. Thank you for your work, ReyHahn, even if we miss out on your input this round. Schwede66 04:22, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- My strategy in Nobel week euphoria is to remove the problematic sections and let the inflow of users write a proper one from scratch. This year i am travelling so I will not help as much as I usually can. ReyHahn (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, for Nobels it should be the award winners, not the list. All three have current problems with referencing (first two relying too much on their published papers) Masem (t) 11:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- friday award generally get its own page. (trump ;)). I'd certainly work on the monday award that is more what i know.Psephguru (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now target articles needs some work. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality There is a lack of secondary sources regarding the three bolded persons. Without a sufficient number of secondary sources, the bolded articles go toward primary sources instead, and primary sourcing may include promotional content. With sourcing issues present, the three bolded articles cannot be posted onto ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Flavio Bolsonaro wins first round in Brazilian presidential election
[edit]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.
Blurb: Flávio Bolsonaro is declared the winner of the first round of the Brazillian presidential election with 47% of the vote. (Post)
- Nominated by EditorShane3456 (talk · give credit)
- Created by CountO-14 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Victor R de Oliveira (talk · give credit) and Jeffrey34555 (talk · give credit)
- Wait He was not elected yet. ArionStar (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hence why I worded it as "first round{ shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:51, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Too early The main election is on the 25th. That's when we should post. Masem (t) 02:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but I'm not sure what you mean by "main" election; the first round matters too. The second round would also be an important news story, but I would argue that this is one, too. The wording of the blurb is "declared the winner of the first round" not "elected president". When Brazil has a new president, that will be a story that day. Who wins the first round matters for Brazilians and for the world. Thoughts? Quinn-TGDF (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed shane (talk to me if you want!) 02:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- The final election is ITNR, and that makes sense to post. Because that's within a month, posting the first round results do not make sense. Masem (t) 03:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but I'm not sure what you mean by "main" election; the first round matters too. The second round would also be an important news story, but I would argue that this is one, too. The wording of the blurb is "declared the winner of the first round" not "elected president". When Brazil has a new president, that will be a story that day. Who wins the first round matters for Brazilians and for the world. Thoughts? Quinn-TGDF (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support, this seems important as evidenced by the fact that it's today's top story on several news outlets, and it affects a lot of people, but I'm not sure about the wording "claims victory". He got the most votes, but this is a first round. Quinn-TGDF (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- To clarify, the wording I'm objecting to is "declared the winner of" - I should have read the original blurb more carefully Quinn-TGDF (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose He hasn't won the election. --Bedivere (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Wait for the main election. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- There is no "main election" there is only election part 1 and election part 2. shane (talk to me if you want!) 03:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet Let the second round happen, then ITN can consider whether to post. In the meantime, figure out proses for the header and the results. CastleFort1 (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose There is no "declared winner of the first round". He led in the first round and there's a runoff, which we'll post. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose We'll post the winner of the runoff. The Kip (contribs) 03:04, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not an upset, not an underdog, do not think ITN should post each stage in a multi-round election. CMD (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is not the final election outcome. We shall post this after the runoff. In addition, the use of 'declared winner' for an election in a democratic country and calling a presidential candidate an 'underdog' is extreme POV. Please keep your emotions to yourself. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose and close first round results are never posted. Wait until the second round results on 25 October. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- comment the senate result is final though. legilslative elections are also ITNR.Psephguru (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose and close per Alsor. This is not the main election. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. We never post first rounds. If he loses the election, this'll mislead readers; if he wins, we'll post the final anyway. Good faith nom. ~2026-53373-98 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
October 4
[edit]|
October 4, 2026 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
Bosnia election
[edit]Blurb: The Bosnian general election concludes in the Bosniak-Croat Federation and the Serbian Republic. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (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.
Nominator's comments: Hard to phrase this as the tri-partite presidency is different and the federation and republic are separate, however it is ITNR as an UN member state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psephguru (talk • contribs) 12:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose All three articles should be expanded to include, at the very minimum, a campaign section for each. As well, I find it strange that the blurb doesn't mention anything about the results. Yes, the political system is complicated, but neglecting to mention the winners leaves the reader with very little information gained. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Avengers: Endgame becomes the highest-grossing film of all time
[edit]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.
Blurb: Following its re-release, Russo brothers' Avengers: Endgame becomes the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing James Cameron's Avatar. (Post)
- Nominated by LiamKorda (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose, sorry, inflation means this kind of thing is always happening. Blythwood (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yet, this is only the 4th time this has happened in this century or only the 7th time this happened in last 50 years. LiamKorda 15:37, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support noteworthy thing, doesn't always happen, enough coverage on mainstream media. Vestrian24Bio 16:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Does not account for inflation (which makes it 3rd, after Gone with the Wind and the OG Star Wars). Masem (t) 17:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor metric that doesn't include inflation. Gone With The Wind would be on something like $4bn by now if that was taken into account, and Endgame would be 5th. Black Kite (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 18:18, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike most of the posters here, I do consider this to be a major achievement and worthy of the blurb. The problem though, is that we already posted it when it first became the highest grossing film of all time. There isn't anything notable about it reclaiming the title again. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 18:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mount Patagonia. While this isn't an irrelevant achievement, it's also not as new as it appears. If anything, this is stale. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose and speedy snow close per GenevieveDEon. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 World Rally Championship
[edit]Blurb: In motorsport, Elfyn Evans and Scott Martin win the 2026 World Rally Championship. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Unnamelessness (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: The first British WRC champion in 25 years won the title......basically at the very last few concerns. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Almost there As sporting article go, it’s not bad. But it needs prose for the results. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:16, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- We got season report section. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- The season summary and the results are not the same thing. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- If you are looking for the summary throughout the season, there is a season report section. If you are looking for the results of the season, there is prose in the lede. The layout is exactly the same as the previous seasons'. Unnamelessness (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Prose in the lede is not a replacement for a lack of it in the body. Please add the text to the relevant section. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Then my question is where and what results would you like to add? We have prose in the lede covering the top three and constructors, and at the end of season summaries, there is season outcome covering WDC and WCC, so not sure what can be added and what you want. Unnamelessness (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Well, who won, would be a good start. I don’t follow motorsport but I’m sure something can be written. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- These literally can be found at the season summaries.
...Toyota's sixth consecutive manufacturers' title.
and...the world titles to Evans and Martin.
Unnamelessness (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- These literally can be found at the season summaries.
- Well, who won, would be a good start. I don’t follow motorsport but I’m sure something can be written. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Then my question is where and what results would you like to add? We have prose in the lede covering the top three and constructors, and at the end of season summaries, there is season outcome covering WDC and WCC, so not sure what can be added and what you want. Unnamelessness (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Prose in the lede is not a replacement for a lack of it in the body. Please add the text to the relevant section. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- If you are looking for the summary throughout the season, there is a season report section. If you are looking for the results of the season, there is prose in the lede. The layout is exactly the same as the previous seasons'. Unnamelessness (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- The season summary and the results are not the same thing. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- We got season report section. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Article seems well sourced and in a complete-enough state, although still with room for expansion further down the line. I disagree with Corchapu's bizarre requests regarding prose in the results section. There is some prose in the results section explaining the tables. If you want prose explaining who won, that can be found in the lead or in the season report section. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Quality appears to be just about there. The Kip (contribs) 00:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Posted. Left guide (talk) 05:19, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
2026 Asian Games
[edit]Blurb: The 2026 Asian Games concludes with China winning the most medals. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Closing cereminy just started about 15 minutes ago. Opening nomination was said to re-nominate at the closing. Fourth biggest sporting tournament in the world. after summer, winter olympics and soccer world cup. Psephguru (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment @Psephguru: AFAICT the 2026 NRL Grand Final has nothing to do with the 2026 Asian Games. Gotitbro (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- We also need sources to show this was covered by the news. Masem (t) 12:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Support As an encyclopedia, I'd prefer we bold 2026 Asian Games rather than the table-heavy chronology. That article is pretty close, though there are sections where it is not clear if references provided are covering all the facts presented - e.g. venues and sports sections. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:03, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The chronology has pratically zero prose and is not suitable for bolding. The main article is pretty good but has some unsourced tables and a few bits of prose. Black Kite (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
2026 NRL Grand Final
[edit]Blurb: The Sydney Roosters defeat the Newcastle Knights in the 2026 NRL Grand Final 19-18. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by PrezDough (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.
PrezDough (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not updated. Can we guys truthfully label these next time? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Match summary and following sections need prose. The Kip (contribs) 00:44, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
October 3
[edit]|
October 3, 2026 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(REVIEW NEEDED) 2026 Ethiopian offensive
[edit]Blurb: The Ethiopian National Defense Force recaptures Mekelle following Tigray People's Liberation Front's withdrawal. (Post)
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment shouldn't this be suggested as Ongoing instead? Since we don't blurb development of current conflict. NotKringe (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Usually we post a blurb about a major even, and if there's reason for keeping it in ongoing, we can talk about it then. But in this case, this is very low visibility conflict in terms of news, so while this event could be posted for ITN, ongoing might not be the best fit afterward if the coverage is still as sparse. Masem (t) 00:41, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support seeing as we didn't blurb the initial offensive/renewal of hostilities. Agree this may be better-suited for ongoing, though. The Kip (contribs) 00:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support blurb, support ongoing afterwards per The Kip. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on quality: Currently, the capture of Mekelle is only described in a single-sentence update; the article does not discuss why this event is especially significant or notable enough to blurb. There is also an LLM tag for a section that needs to be rewritten. The article is well-suited for ongoing, though. --Leviavery (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. Timeline based articles that are written as events unfold need to be rewritten subsequently to properly contextualize and cull events within the prose narrative. Listing every event that was important enough for contemporary news coverage leads to WP:PROPORTION issues (see for example the bit about stranded tourists on 9/30). Also oppose ongoing on procedural grounds. Ongoing is an acceptable evil of ITN that we need to avoid using it anywhere a blurb would do. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:39, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - The conflict is becoming increasingly intense and has high ramifications for Ethiopia and potentially the rest of the region, and it is also garnering substantial media attention. I don't see why it doesn't deserve to be on the bullet list for current events (or at least labelled as "ongoing"). ~2026-51187-32 (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
2026 Latvian parliamentary election
[edit]Blurb: The United List, led by Andris Kulbergs, wins the Latvian parliamentary election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United List, led by Andris Kulbergs (pictured), wins the most seats in the Latvian parliamentary election. Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
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: Article needs a bit more prose. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:12, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Little to no prose in the article as it stands. The Kip (contribs) 00:39, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose A section on campaign and aftermath should be added before posting. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Spanish housing protests
[edit]Blurb: Widespread protests occur in Spain following a housing crisis. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A snap election is announced following widespread housing protests in Spain.
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support These have been going on a while and don't seem to be stopping anytime soon. They are getting extensive coverage worldwide, and have additional impact given that there will be an election in Spain within a year. The article is looking great as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- This has gained importance now that Sanchez has called early election. The blurb should probably be modified to note that. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 11:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support on quality and notability This widely-covered event has been going on since September 23, within a year of the next Spanish general election. ~2026-52110-68 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Amend the blurb by noting that the 2026 Spanish general election has been called partly due to this crisis. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Quality of the article is good. Event is important and has wider effects. Rolluik (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support altblurb as it goes into more detail of the outcome. TwistedAxe [contact] 00:52, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support altblurb per Twistedaxe, although I added the word "housing" to "widespread protests" in the alt, as I think the protests being related to the housing crisis must be incorporated somehow. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 04:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Alt1. And if FlipandFlopped wouldn't have added "housing" to the Altblurb, I would have! Schwede66 04:18, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Super League Grand Final
[edit]Blurb: In Rugby league, the Super League Grand Final ends with Wakefield Trinity defeating the Warrington Wolves. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Hullian111 (talk · give credit) and Black Kite (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.
Abcmaxx (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Prose summary of the match needed. SpencerT•C 21:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Spencer. Too short on prose, disproportionate amount of tables. Match summary needed. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:18, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not updated. Can we guys truthfully label these next time? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- A good start would be to change the blurb to 'Wakefield Trinity defeat the Warrington Wolves'. ~2026-53388-04 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Fixed, and fixed as regards ENGVAR. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support/Ready Match report added, uncited material removed, tenses fixed. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Almost there The first paragraph in Background is not fully sourced. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oops, missed that.
Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oops, missed that.
Posted. Left guide (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
October 2
[edit]|
October 2, 2026 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Irene Butter
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk · give credit)
- Created by AMM Pittsburgh (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: Public health scientist, known as Holocaust survivor and peace activist. The article was decent when it began in 2022. There are plenty of other obits, all in German so far. Ref for a date of marriage welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- "She informed over decades" Is there anything more available about the substance of her lecturing? There is an implication in the sources and the awards that she was doing more than just telling her narrative. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I moved a section from further down into that context and expanded a bit, - please check, GreatCaesarsGhost, and how about expanding yourself also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support the article is certainly good to post as is. But ITN is usually the last good chance to put eyes on the update so I just wanted to call it out. Looking at her areas of interest in public health, I'm guessing that perspective brought something unique to her Holocaust commentary that would be good to capture. I did try to find something in the current sources, as google search is of course going to push me towards obits. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I moved a section from further down into that context and expanded a bit, - please check, GreatCaesarsGhost, and how about expanding yourself also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Sass Jordan
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Abebenjoe (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Bearcat (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: Important Canadian musician/singer and popular culture figure. Okay article, probably sufficient to be included as an ITN article. Abebenjoe (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work Sourcing issues. A couple of unreferenced statements/paragraphs and a partially cited discography.CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Heavily updated in the past 24 hours, needs to be re-evaluated.Abebenjoe (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work Sourcing issues. A couple of unreferenced statements/paragraphs and a partially cited discography.CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Lyle Odelein
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Article is not terrible but woefully undercited, I have orange-tagged the article. However lots of sources available. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Alister Smart
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Happily888 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Adelberta (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Jackoarchives (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.
Happily888 (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet ready Several unsourced claims. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose only a few gaps in the prose, however the filmography for boyh acting and directing sections have huge gaps. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Overhaul of the criminal justice system in South Korea
[edit]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.
Blurb: South Korea dissolves the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, which indicted president Lee Jae Myung. (Post)
Article needs updating
- Oppose on quality Reading the article, I am really confused. What did this office do? Why was it dissolved. On the writing, some parts are strangely phrased as well. If this is to be posted it needs to show why it’s important, and it needs a serious expansion and copyedit. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose "Government dissolves a government agency" seems a bit unnecessary for ITN. Especially when they seem to simply be replacing what it did by giving those powers to other agencies.Basetornado (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm using this to try to distill what's going on, and to me, this reads very much like internal politics that are not yet at any type of significant end fate. The office is being replaces by two others, separating investigative powers from prosecution, though it does read that there's weaker ability to investigate that affects more than Lee here. Its the type of move/action that we've been seeing countless times over the last two years at the US Gov't but which would never meet ITN. Masem (t) 10:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose ignoring the significant issues with the article itself, I don't see how a reorganization is anyhing other than local news - I'm not seeing much coverage. Nfitz (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment President Lee's Democratic Party of SK was never in a good relationship with prosecutors, and former president Yoon Suk Yeol was a prosecutor himself. After his martial law declaration and arrest, he was released and the prosecutor-general chose not to appeal court orders canceling his detention. This is long story and should be mentioned in some detail in the article to not confuse readers. Didgogns (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Brooke Eby
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by The Kip (talk · give credit)
- Created by Coqui002 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Sxg169 (talk · give credit) and JSFarman (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: American social media personality and ALS advocate/patient, passed from ALS yesterday but death was announced today. The Kip (contribs) 23:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Sourcing could be refined, but there is sufficient ones that I lean towards meeting quality. CMD (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Tony Reno
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by thrashbandicoot01 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Former head football coach at Yale University. thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not Ready some sentences needs citations TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀)(Tuff edits for 🥶LE SIGMAS🥶) 23:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work Several paragraphs unreferenced. Head coaching record section unreferenced. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
2026 French lycée protests
[edit]Blurb: High school students in France and Belgium launch mass protests for better conditions, starting fires and causing 400 schools to be closed. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Created by Giantsfann48 (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Students across France and Belgium are protesting against poor conditions in schools. The unrest has led to dramatic scenes of fires and blockaded schools across the country, and they are only increasing. Also today, they have spread from France into Belgium as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support. Most definitely. Not only did Libération have scrolling coverage earlier today, the protests have their own section in Le Figaro. (The Guardian tells the tale for the anglosphere: "Fires, fury and hundreds of arrests as France gripped by student protests — Government struggling to deal with worst crisis in months after being taken by surprise by massive demonstrations".)WP:CRYSTALBALL notwithstanding, this has May 1968 vibes to it. kencf0618 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support on significance - Major news story that has only been intensifying as it goes on. However, the article has one small section without citations, which should be fixed before this can go up. Youraveragearmy (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Article is really weirdly worded and makes me wonder if its relying on lot of translation from French or Dutch wiki, though from fr:Mouvement lycéen et blocus de 2026 en France, I'm not seeing enough to be sure. There's definitely source gaps that need to be fixed. Masem (t) 23:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability, article needs work While protests are common in France, the international coverage's main focus was the student demand for better conditions in schools and education centers. The article clearly demonstrates this notability by detailing the scale of the youth protests. However, I agree that the article quality also needs work, as there is an orange tagged section and another tag which states that the citation style is unclear. I also wish for the article to expand into detail about the conditions leading up to the protests: Teacher shortages, air conditioning issues, stress-induced climates, and overcrowded classrooms. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support I was actually going to create this article yesterday, but didn't find the time. This is receiving sustained coverage for some time now, though the article quality is clunky. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 17:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- So many tags... ArionStar (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability, oppose on quality per Castlefort. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:22, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability but oppose on quality. Major impact and consequences, reported worldwide. However the first two subsections, "background" and "demands and organisation" both need a major overhaul and implementation of sources. The rest of the article is in very good shape however. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- As many above support on notability, oppose on quality. There's something very odd about this page, as if it has been translated word-for-word from the French page, without due thought to our separate guidelines on citations. Just one example: We've got newspaper-eque coverage of the statements of one 17-year-old protester saying she's been outside since 7 am and the school has been in poor shape for three years. Citing this means finding the article that quotes this anonymous member of the public, which is the complete opposite of how encyclopedic articles should be written. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- It is a very strange article indeed. I'm working on citing the article right now - and I predict I'll be cutting quite a lot. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support, notable.Wi1-ch (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support notable, widespread coverage. The article looks almost good enough imo. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- On quality, certainly not yet, it has several orange tags and dozens of CN tags. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:40, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above Setarip (talk) 17:14, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Cesar Virata
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit)
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: Last prime minister of the Marcos-era Philippines and a prominent financial figure in the regime. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready due to sourcing issues in the "Government service" section. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Bruce Baird
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Samuel Wiki (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Australian politician Samuel Wiki (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 03:11, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
October 1
[edit]|
October 1, 2026 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Ready?) RD: Biljana Plavšić
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Alsor97 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Strattonsmith (talk · give credit) and Griboski (talk · give credit)
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: Once the ‘Iron Lady of the Balkans’, she was later the only woman convicted of war crimes during the Bosnian War. The article appears to be in good condition, following some revisions to the sources and content. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
Almost ready One uncited award.CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC)- @CantBelieveINeedAnAccount User:StephenMacky1 fixed it. Is the article now ready to go? _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 10:07, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Ready No glaring issues with article. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: George Waft
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Jon698 (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: Manx politician who proposed legislation to abolish birching and supported anti-discrimination legislation Jon698 (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- With 350+ words of prose, this is a short wikibio but long enough to qualify. I find no obvious gaps in coverage of the subject's life. Formatting looks fine. Footnotes can be found in expected spots. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio looks READY for RD to me. --PFHLai (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Conrad Lant
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Lewis Hulbert (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Maltazarian (talk · give credit)
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: Died 29 September, announced on 1 October. British heavy metal musician known by his stage name Cronos, founder of Venom. Sourcing is currently very poor, with entire paragraphs that don't have a single reference and the discography completely unreferenced. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet ready Orange-tagged with multiple unsourced paragraphs. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Aforementioned sourcing deficiencies persist. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
RD: Lito Sousa
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
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.
ArionStar (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is referenced and well-sourced. --VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 23:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:PROPORTION. More than half the article is a very detailed account of his health woes. If that is the source of his notability, I'm not getting that from the context. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean "for RD"? The standard of quality is the same for all ITN nominations. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see much of a problem with it. They're just saying that the biography is up to scratch. And yes, RD does have a few requirements not needed for other ITN articles, such as that the birthdate must be specifically referenced. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- What do you mean "for RD"? The standard of quality is the same for all ITN nominations. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:32, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per GCG. As someone who hasn't heard of this individual before, I don't come away from the article with a sense of what he's notable for. We're told he's the most watched aviation YouTuber but with no real detail on that, examples of his top work etc. Having CJD is somewhat interesting, but it's not what he's famous for, and shouldn't occupy half the prose. WP:ITNQUALITY applies to all articles, we don't water it down for RDs compared to full blurb. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strongest support possible This is a YouTuber with 4.2 million subscribers (he ran the Aviões e Músicas channel). Lito helped people understand airplanes, investigate air crashes, and make aviation simple for newcomers. FlamingMingo 🦩 13:04, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- RDs should not focus on notability; they should be judged exclusively on quality. Please re-evaluate your !vote. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support The article is well-cited and meets the minimum standards. We routinely and frequently post RDs with less total prose and detail. Someone having well-documented health struggles and those struggles being one of the prime things they are known for should not be disqualifying. If most of the coverage of him relates to his CJD, which is seemingly the case, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by arbitrarily bloating the remaining parts of the article out of some effort to commemorate his aviation work. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:25, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- The objection is not that he's known for his health issues; it is that he is not so the article gets it wrong. Sousa's Portuguese article was created in 2022 with 16 references , well before any health issues were public. The logical conclusion is that he was clearly notable for his aviation work, which is the reason his later health issues received coveraged. With that understanding, this article is disproportionately focused on those issues. The level of detail may be appropriate for an ephemeral daily update targeting an audience aware of his history but does not belong in a retroactive summary of his entire life. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:43, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Amakuru, GCG. Insufficient depth regarding what he was generally known for (his Youtube channel); article only has 2-3 sentences related to that in the career section (" His channel, "Aviões e Músicas" (Airplanes and Songs), is the most-watched aviation channel on YouTube, where he posted videos "demystifying the mysteries of aviation." ... His journey was chronicled in the series Decola Lito." SpencerT•C 21:00, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
September 30
[edit]|
September 30, 2026 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
(Posted) RD: John Bröcheler
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Gerda Arendt (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: Dutch baritone based at the Dutch National Opera, appearing internationally, first in contemporary concerts, then on great opera stages, interesting lead characters such as Wozzeck and Lear, also world premieres. I wrote the article, so updating was faster than normally ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support 4103 characters (659 words) "readable prose size" and fully sourced. Grimes2 14:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Sourced throughout, no issues. Yakikaki (talk)\
Almost ready Article looks good overall, however Concert section has a minor case of WP:PROSELINE as well as a when tag.CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)- Grimes seems to have fixed it, please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Above issue has been fixed. There are no more issues that I could find and the article looks good overall. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:49, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Christa Pike
[edit]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.
Blurb: Christa Pike, who was to be the first woman executed in Tennessee in 200 years, survives two doses of a lethal injection drug. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Christa Pike survives an execution attempt in Tennessee after receiving two doses of a lethal injection drug.
- Nominated by Cutlass (talk · give credit)
- Oppose. It's certainly made headlines around the world, but it's a relatively local event whose lasting significance nationally and globally isn't likely to be enormous. We're not a news ticker and this doesn't seem to rise to the level to satisfy WP:ITNSIGNIF IMHO. Also, "the first woman to be executed in Tennessee in 200 years" is rather evidently not an accurate description, at least for now, so a tweak to the blurb would certainly be required... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- "to be" was intended to be in future tense, but the sentence reads differently than I thought it would. Oh well. CutlassCiera 14:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Added alt blurb byteflush Talk 23:11, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Spectacular failure of a death penalty attempt that calls much into question. I strongly disagree with reasoning regarding lasting significance, and being a news ticker. This is a larger matter of global reflection for humanity on crime and punishment with numerous facets including gender, in my view. Discussion of precise blurb wording will take place, no doubt. In the news, notably. Jusdafax (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose She's still sentenced to death, and as the NYTimes article poitns out "It was the second botched execution in the state this year." Adding on the first female execution in 200 years in the state makes this a superlative-type story that is just not good for ITN, since you can make any event seem super significant depending on how you cut the basis. Masem (t) 14:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- The last attempt to execute someone wasn't as much botched as this one. In that case, they failed to find a suitable vein and called off the execution; this time, the condemned survived two doses of an execution drug. Additionally, her execution had already been a news story of its own. CutlassCiera 14:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've reworded it a bit to hopefully make it a bit clearer. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- The last attempt to execute someone wasn't as much botched as this one. In that case, they failed to find a suitable vein and called off the execution; this time, the condemned survived two doses of an execution drug. Additionally, her execution had already been a news story of its own. CutlassCiera 14:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support since it’s been garnering a lot of coverage and would be an intriguing entry for our readers. Meets the WP:ITNPURPOSE and could have implications on the death penalty in America. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 15:34, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support International coverage of an uncommon event and a well-documented case. ArionStar (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Masem. It is, for now, of almost no significance at the judicial and prison levels; it has received very limited international coverage and is of no significance to ITN. We are not a news portal, let alone one for this sort of sensationalist, local news. _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Limited? ArionStar (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- This website is blocked by my school, what is this about? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know why, but that is a Brazilian news site talking about how the UN has condemned it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- This website is blocked by my school, what is this about? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Limited? ArionStar (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't decided yet where I stand on this, but I'd like to add for context that the governor of Tennessee has suspended all further executions in the state for the remainder of the year, contributing to claims of significance. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 17:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- As added above, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned the execution attempt. ArionStar (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Since the UN has condemned this execution attempt and it is in the news, but I don't think we should include that it is the first woman to be executed in 200 years in Tennessee. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- There's lots of criticism of the US's allowance for death penalties. The unusual nature here of this does not make that a new thing. Masem (t) 19:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Aside from media and political circus, it's basically a trivia at best. Probably better off as DYK. NotKringe (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is it eligible there? CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- could be if it somehow expanded fivefold in like the last 7 days TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀)(Tuff edits for 🥶LE SIGMAS🥶) 19:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Is it eligible there? CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 18:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Botched executions are rare, but not unprecedented. There was another botched execution in Tennesee this year (Tony Carruthers) who doesn't even have a Wikipedia article as of this writing. I'm not sure why this story has received more media attention (maybe because she's a white woman, highly unusual for the death penalty). Pike and Carruthers will in all likelyhood still be executed in some manner or another once Tennesee reassesses their execution protocol. I think the state also has the electric chair as an option. Other botched lethal injection executions have happened in the U.S. in the last decade, which led to the use of nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative for those inmates (Execution of Alan Eugene Miller, Execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith), though that option is currently not on the table in Tennessee. TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Meets WP:ITNPURPOSE and WP:ITNSIGNIF pretty much on every point. It's a widely covered story, not just in the US, even UN experts called for halting the execution, and people will come to Wikipedia to find more info. Article is updated and is still being updated. People who wouldn't look it up otherwise will find it interesting too (subjective, ymmv, but I did). It's not a one-off, the governor already halted the remaining execution for this year, and reputable sources have been reporting on it and the followup, so it's not just one agency story reposted everywhere. byteflush Talk 22:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support as per above. This is an uncommon event receiving international coverage, and meets WP:ITNPURPOSE. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Wait - if the key here is that they lived, and not the attempts to kill her, then given the reports of her current critical condition, the entire discussion may be moot. This doesn't endorse a blurb if she lives - but we might as well wait until then to have this discussion. Especially as the coverage actually seems to have increased over the day, to my surprise. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Better suited for DYK, in my opinion. I don't see any larger or lasting impact from this. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ITNSIGNIF doesn't mention lasting impact. Only impact is required and we have that already, as mentioned above. Lasting impact is WP:CRYSTAL anyway. byteflush Talk 03:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Better suited for DYK, in my opinion. I don't see any larger or lasting impact from this. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support due to extremely uncommon case and very rare event. – Ivan Humphrey (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I was on the fence here because the UPDATE is good as is overall quality. I'm struggling with the significance though, and the arguments from supporters here are not compelling. The death penalty is always subject to criticism from wide sources, in large part because it is barbaric. Others argue it is rare, and that appears to very much not be the case. This very specific flavor of botching may be unique, but that gets into the superlative talk that is ill-suited to our purposes. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:40, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The detail that Wikipedia goes into on the subject of American death row and capital punishments is frankly embarrassing, and this is not particularly important, despite being unusual. There are 248 articles in Template:CapPun-US, and they don't include the hundreds upon hundreds of bios of all the people who have been executed, were sentenced to be executed but weren't, or are currently awaiting execution (List of death row inmates in the United States). (I appreciate some will be notable, but I suspect most are just WP:NOTNEWS). The irony is that many are very well written, they're just ... unnecessary. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- I completely agree! I’ve never understood why everyone executed/pending executions in the United States has to have their own wiki article. It’s totally unnecessary, and many of these cases receive little media attention and are of little legal relevance or significance. Although this one isn’t… _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Let's not get out of hand. This article is 18 years old. It has 90 citations from at least 9 different years, showing sustained, diverse, and direct coverage. It is a good article, and there is no reasonable argument that it shouldn't exist. It's unfortunate that some topics languish while other less important topics get the FA treatment. But we're all volunteers and Wikipedians have their pet interests. There are policies in place to keep the details from getting out of hand, but the article should have some detail of the crimes of a notable criminal. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting this particular article was non-notable, merely that the story wasn't ITN material (whilst commenting on the somewhat creepy hyperdetail of Wikipedia's coverage of people being killed by the US authorities). Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- You made a blind, blanket statement that an entire category of articles (that you concede are well-written) are likely to be non-notable ("I appreciate some will be notable"). I understand and partly share the sentiment that "The detail...is frankly embarrassing", but you shouldn't throw around such a specific and broad indictment without evidence. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting this particular article was non-notable, merely that the story wasn't ITN material (whilst commenting on the somewhat creepy hyperdetail of Wikipedia's coverage of people being killed by the US authorities). Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Let's not get out of hand. This article is 18 years old. It has 90 citations from at least 9 different years, showing sustained, diverse, and direct coverage. It is a good article, and there is no reasonable argument that it shouldn't exist. It's unfortunate that some topics languish while other less important topics get the FA treatment. But we're all volunteers and Wikipedians have their pet interests. There are policies in place to keep the details from getting out of hand, but the article should have some detail of the crimes of a notable criminal. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:47, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- I completely agree! I’ve never understood why everyone executed/pending executions in the United States has to have their own wiki article. It’s totally unnecessary, and many of these cases receive little media attention and are of little legal relevance or significance. Although this one isn’t… _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on significance This is a difficult nomination to comment on because there has indeed been some media coverage of the story, but more in the realm of reporting on the unusual novelty/shock factor of surviving two doses of a nominally lethal chemical injection rather than the impact or notability of the victim herself. Given that execution by lethal injection is not a perfectly reliable method for administering capital punishment, and the fact that there have been multiple well-attested instances of it happening recently as per TarkusAB above that did not get any nominations for ITN earlier, I am reluctant to consider this significant enough for ITN. Oppius Brutus (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose ITN is not DYK. Hardly any WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE in this subnational news item. Gotitbro (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support – I'm seeing in-depth coverage even in Dutch sources. Article expansion is impressive and quality is good. All seems set to go for this article. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose - it is very interesting event with a lot of coverage but also a very singular event OrdinariusFingius (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - In addition to the various notable reactions in the media cited above, it is now headline news in USA Today that the state governor announced Oct. 3 that Frank Strada, the criticized Tennessee Commissioner for the Department of Prisons, will resign. Jusdafax (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Can someone tell me why she is given life-saving care? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an execution? (This is mentioned in the lead but not the body.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that’s just the default they’re falling back on - someone’s injured, save them. They no longer have permission for the execution so giving her life-saving care is what they must do. I’m not an expert though so someone familiar with this can add it to the article, if correct. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:10, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Can someone tell me why she is given life-saving care? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of an execution? (This is mentioned in the lead but not the body.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose as it is a very minor event in the American justice system. Plenty of people don't die everyday and this is the second botched execution by Tennessee this year. Jon698 (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Like it or not, this is a hot topic with massive coverage and readership. And the article is quite substantial and polished. And it's quite consequential too as the head of the prison system has now resigned. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:17, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Gabriel Serville
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: President of the Assembly of French Guiana, which is akin to leaders of other regional/departmental councils in metropolitan France. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is referenced and well-sourced. Looks good to post in terms of quality. Header prose is sufficient, with Serville holding the regional assembly presidency, the second highest position of French Guiana's government, from 2021 to his death in 2026. CastleFort1 (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Decent enough. Could be expanded. Yakikaki (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 20:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Esther Rantzen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English journalist and television presenter who presented the BBC television series That's Life! for 21 years. ItsShandog (talk) 18:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet ready Multiple CN tags. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Just resolved them.--Launchballer 23:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article seems well written and no citation tags on it. I did add a little about her libel case but I hope that doesn't dq me from !voting. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk|edits) 21:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 03:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) Flydubai Flight 1073
[edit]Blurb: Over Saudi Arabia, the crew and passengers of Flydubai Flight 1073 avert an apparent attempt to hijack or crash the airliner. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Sandstein (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Very uncommon aviation incident reminiscent of September 11, headline news in major international media. Sandstein 15:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support but wait I support this because it is a major attempted hijacking incident, especially with the Iran war going on right in that area. It seems like one of the pilots tried to take control and crash the plane, but was stopped by the other pilot. However we should wait for some more information to come out so we don't publish anything without confirmation. This is a messy situation and we should tend on the side of caution. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- In ITN, we report stories that are currently in the news, even if uncertainties remain. That's a matter for the editors working on the article. Sandstein 15:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- No we don't promote speculation.Psephguru (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- This has the possibility for so many large and dangerous uncertainties that in my mind it is best to wait, just a little bit, to clear the air around the event. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support but wait per above. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:57, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- strong oppose nothing happened and it is all he said, she said.Psephguru (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support The article seems adequate and clear enough. There's no need to wait further. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now - a whole bunch of "possible" and "could have"s as of now. The facts are that there was a stabbing and that the plane landed safely; the September 11 comparisons ignore that those were coordinated and mostly-successful attacks. There hasn't been a definite cause that would make it an attempted crash at this time and so I've attached the "for now" at the end of my vote. Eoline 17:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support - despite the hijacker failing, this is a major event in the media and could've have been a large 9/11-style terrorist attack. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support - significant incident, article in good shape. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support An anti-Semitic attempted terrorist attack/hijacking. Could have gone much worse. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- At present, that's not confirmed, with Israeli security officials currently saying it's not a hijacking. It's definitely premature to ascribe a detailed motive and description. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Seems they're calling it an attempted terrorist attack now. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- At present, that's not confirmed, with Israeli security officials currently saying it's not a hijacking. It's definitely premature to ascribe a detailed motive and description. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Wait The article says "Based on initial assessments". Well, we've currently got a Wikipedia article "based on initial assessments" which is about five guys trying to steal petrol. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support but wait per above. It's been a while since a high-profile aircraft hijacking, but many of the details are still being confirmed, so let's not jump the gun too quickly. The Kip (contribs) 18:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support and post ASAP; I'm not a fan of
support but wait
!votes; its in the news, and the newsworthy details are generally agreed upon; a simple wait vote would be better imo. Irrespective, this has been gaining widespread coverage; I've certainly seen it be up there on social media and news sites. There is no need to wait. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)- WP is not a newspaper. We are focused on featuring quality articles, and we will wait to make sure all the appropriate details are in place before posting. There is no driver to post a sub-par quality article faster. Masem (t) 19:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah and it's a C class article, which is acceptable for ITN. If ITN waited for all the details of a story to be in place prior to posting, we wouldn't be able to feature anything. When the core facts of the story are agreed upon, it should be fairgame. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's still a lot of details not known, like motive. ITN is in no rush to post anything, and we can wait for more details, particularly when otherwise everyone else is safe and sound. As other opposes have noted, if no one died, why should we post anything? It would be far better to know if this was a serious terrorist incident or some guy that went crazy on his own, among other possible outcomes. Masem (t) 21:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
if no one died, why should we post anything
- WP:MINIMUIMDEATHS is redlinked for a reason ya know. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 22:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- You spelled it wrong, which is why it is redlinked - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Eoline 22:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Figured
- Anyway,
There is not a guideline for the "minimum death toll" needed for such posting.
— Knightoftheswords(talk) 02:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Its not about death tolls, but the lack of a significant incident. Motive is what separates thing from a random nutcase from a serious terrorism incident. We'd clearly post the latter, but the former is of questionable merit. Masem (t) 03:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- You spelled it wrong, which is why it is redlinked - WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Eoline 22:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's still a lot of details not known, like motive. ITN is in no rush to post anything, and we can wait for more details, particularly when otherwise everyone else is safe and sound. As other opposes have noted, if no one died, why should we post anything? It would be far better to know if this was a serious terrorist incident or some guy that went crazy on his own, among other possible outcomes. Masem (t) 21:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah and it's a C class article, which is acceptable for ITN. If ITN waited for all the details of a story to be in place prior to posting, we wouldn't be able to feature anything. When the core facts of the story are agreed upon, it should be fairgame. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- WP is not a newspaper. We are focused on featuring quality articles, and we will wait to make sure all the appropriate details are in place before posting. There is no driver to post a sub-par quality article faster. Masem (t) 19:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Image added to WP:CMP. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: The image has been already marked as imagevio (it's from Reuters). — Draceane talkcontribs. 18:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Image removed from blurb and CMP. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support as per Knightoftheswords. Major news item. 174 passengers saved in extremis - the opposes to this are just unfathomable. Khuft (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Wait Details and motive of the hijacker should be in place first before posting. Masem (t) 18:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support - this is a big incident but more details would be appreciated OrdinariusFingius (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. ITN is for things that happened, not things that almost happened. Comparing to 9/11 is in poor taste imo, especially with such little information about motives etc orangesclub 🍊 19:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Wait - obviously a big story, with clear comparisons to certain events on 9/11 and in particular United Airlines Flight 93; not in scope of course, but in terms of the actions of the passengers. But let's find out a bit more. Who was involved? Were there security forces on the plane? Is what we've been hearing verified? Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Wait. Something happened but there is barely anything more we can reliably say beyond that. It could be a very major something, it could be a very minor something, until we know which it is posting is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- An alt-blurb is needed, since an attempted hijacking is the working theory as of now, but we don't actually know for sure. There will be an investigation by multiple agencies from several countries in regards to this incident. The alt-blurb should stick to what is known, and I would suggest saying it made an emergency landing after a disturbance in the cockpit. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The act is undoubtedly hijacking, is there another theory? But I thought the working theory was about the motive, which was suicide, not using or taking the aircraft. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Is it? How do YOU know? Were you there? None of us were. We are merely relying upon reports. Early reports can be wrong and sometimes are. History is littered with examples of a rush to judgement and then it turns out to be true. And in any case, WP is not about what happened, but what can be cited. The sources say passengers and Israeli officials consider it an attempted hijacking. It's entirely possible both are wrong. The first officer was arrested, and likely interrogated, and we will learn much more and can confirm what most likely happened later. We must always express caution and err on the side of caution and there's never a rush. We're not even a news organization! Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- That feels a bit agressive! What does it matter what I "know", @Harizotoh9. The question was what is the working theory? Not what actually happened. Of course it's likely an attempting hijacking - by definition, a suicide attempt by crashing a plane is attempted hijacking. Why are you telling me that there's no rush, when I literally "voted" wait? Nfitz (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Is it? How do YOU know? Were you there? None of us were. We are merely relying upon reports. Early reports can be wrong and sometimes are. History is littered with examples of a rush to judgement and then it turns out to be true. And in any case, WP is not about what happened, but what can be cited. The sources say passengers and Israeli officials consider it an attempted hijacking. It's entirely possible both are wrong. The first officer was arrested, and likely interrogated, and we will learn much more and can confirm what most likely happened later. We must always express caution and err on the side of caution and there's never a rush. We're not even a news organization! Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The act is undoubtedly hijacking, is there another theory? But I thought the working theory was about the motive, which was suicide, not using or taking the aircraft. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Opppose There weren't any casualties involved nor was there any significant follow-up action, such as the UAE temporarily suspending all flights in response to this. In general we don't post failed attacks regardless of how much coverage there is, and without any real significance on its own there's no reason it should be posted. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 22:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's at least three casualties: both pilots were stabbed, and a passenger was hospitalized. Maybe the word you're looking for is fatalities? – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 00:45, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't remember the last time we posted an averted incident. 9/11 and UA-93 comparisions are entirely inapt. No one was killed here and the possible disaster averted, but just to be sure we don't know what was the intention of the hijacking itself (crashing/suicide or kidnapping) or even the motive. WP:CRYSTAL looms large. The lead as of now has this "
On 30 September 2026, the Boeing 737 MAX 8 flying the route broadcasted a hijack squawk code, diverted from its flight path, and made an emergency landing at Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Airport in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.
", I am not seeing anything here that rises to WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose nothingburguer Yacàwotçã (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Over 100 people nearly being killed from a suicide by aircraft attempt which resulted in injuries is a nothingburger? I mean seriously, what do you think is big news than. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Hijacking incidents like Tropic Air Flight 711 are uncommon enough, but an attempted suicide by pilot on a passenger jet carrying 180 people? I don't remember the last time I've heard a pilot stabbed another pilot. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support Normally I'm not a fan of "near miss" type nominations. But this one is clearly different. It sounds like the plane was moments away from crashing and it was a deliberate attack. I think that, coupled with the global attention it is getting is enough to justify blurbing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support. Being treated as a possible terrorist incident with geopolitical ramifications; if the cabin and crew had not intervened, we would have been looking at a very different result. ~2026-38065-02 (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Investigators are of course going to assume terrorism when it involves trying to hijacking a plane, but that doesn't mean it actually is. Masem (t) 03:01, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support but wait An attempted suicide by pilot is quite rare, especially with a large passenger jet. I do hope for more info to come out first however, I still feel like a lot of the news sources are in disagreement of what happened. – LuniZunie(talk) 02:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above Setarip (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose uncertainty aside, I don't think "near miss" is worthy enough of a blurb, especially when it wouldn't amount to anything in the long run. It's like that one blurb for nothingburger 9.0 earthquake in Siberia all over again. NotKringe (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Do not wait. Whether a news incident has an established motive or not is completely irrelevant to its notability for In the News. There are many violent news incidents which never have any motive established even years after the event. —Lowellian (reply) 04:06, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support/comment re blurb This story has been all over the news worldwide and is obviously significant given the notability of an averted mass disaster (given 180 people were on board the plane) and multiple key regional actors implicated. I do feel the proposed blurb comes off too ambiguous (apparent...hijack or crash) and should focus more on the diversion and landing of the plane, e.g. "Flydubai Flight 1073 diverts and lands safely after its captain is attacked by its first officer in Saudi Arabian airspace". That said, happy to workshop the wording further and not fussed about the timing of whether to wait or post ASAP. Oppius Brutus (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Supporters argued that the event has received major billing in international media due to its novelty. Some opposers countered that, because the attack was foiled, there has been limited impact and no casualties, but ITN is not a casualty counter and ITN items are judged by significance as measured by level of media coverage rather than any direct measure of impact. Others argued that we should wait due to the uncertainty involved. However, additional details have emerged since some of those !votes. Also, supporters countered that the information in the proposed blurb was factual and did not make unwarranted assumptions, and that reader interest does not wait for all the details to emerge. As such, I find consensus to post. The blurb can be updated as needed if additional information emerges. Sdkb talk 04:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment File:A6-FKF B737Max8 2026-01-02 DXB FlyDubai psnb.jpeg now available to use. Added to CMP. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
SpaceX Starship launch into the Earth's orbit
[edit]Blurb: SpaceX Starship super heavy-lift launch vehicle has delivered a functional payload to the Earth's orbit for the first time. (Post)
- Nominated by Wi1-ch (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Wi1-ch (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be good progress but it's puzzling that they are splashing down rather than landing on the tower. The article really needs a picture though. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support, achieving orbit with one of the largest and biggest launch vehicles in history is a massive milestone. This launch might’ve not demonstrated catching and potential reuse of Super Heavy or Starship, but it is nonetheless a very significant advancement in spaceflight. Anacaab (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose At a certain point we need to develop guidelines for spacecruft. This isn't the first time heavy launch vehicles have delivered things into orbit, we've been doing that for the better part of a century. One corporation's milestone does not news make. BSMRD (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose as per BSMRD. These space tech "milestones" are becoming run-of-the-mill... We're not posting the releases of the latest LLM generations either. Khuft (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, very marginal gains from the previous flight. And despite reaching orbit, it did so after engine failures in both the booster and the second stage. And then remained in orbit only for a single orbit, rather than the original plan to remain there for much longer. They also didn't recover the spacecraft - or even the booster. Nfitz (talk) 21:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. The Kip (contribs) 18:38, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose "Spacecraft goes to orbit" isn't a ITN thing. Basetornado (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support biggest and most powerful rocket to go into orbit. Scuba 19:31, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per BSMRD. CantBelieveINeedAnAccount (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
(Removed) Removal: 2026 Lebanon war
[edit]Nominator's comments: Last significant update was done on Sep 10 (Special:Diff/1374253830). A quick search on Google shows no significant coverage of the conflict in the area since beyond rethorics, hence not qualifying as an event with frequent coverage which is a criteria for the Ongoing section. – robertsky (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal As there is no clear idea what the end will be, having such in the ongoing line wears it down, in addition to the fact that while it is still ongoing, news coverage is very low and the lack of updates to the appropriate articles. Any major events in the future can be considered for ITNC. Masem (t) 11:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support This was added as a sub-entry for the Iran war when it received significant attention beyond the main entry. It isn't anymore and the main item should suffice in any case. Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal Not in the global news. Rolluik (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Supprt per above shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per reasons listed in the previous removal attempt last month that went unactioned. While typically this is where I'd call for the inclusion of a timeline, that's also receiving sporadic updates, and even then, I just don't see too much news coverage to warrant this. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Gotitbro. The Kip (contribs) 18:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Rolluik. Khuft (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- support removal disqualify my vote if the restrictions still count for ongoing removals, but 20 days without a signifiant update practically means there is not much ongoing anymore, I legit don't see many news sources talking about it anymore so I do not see a reason for it be in ongoing any longer TuffMangoPhonk6741🥭🥭 (those who talk 💀)(Tuff edits for 🥶LE SIGMAS🥶) 19:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal. No longer significantly ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Removed. SpencerT•C 00:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support removal for the same reasons I supported its removal in the previous nomination last month. Simply not in the news anymore and a clear example of a conflict rolling off ITN as a result. Oppius Brutus (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
United States fully withdraws from Iraq
[edit]Blurb: The United States completes its military withdrawal from Iraq, ending Operation Inherent Resolve. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The United States withdraws its last troops from Iraq, ending twenty-three years of American military presence in the country. Credits:
- Nominated by Militant.Insurgency (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Operation Inherent Resolve, the United States military's intervention against the Islamic State has officially come to a close. This is a historic event for Iraq since its the first time they havent had American troops stationed in years.
There is an article for this event, but it is very poor and outdated so I decided to link to Operation Inherent Resolve. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support when ready. America's planned surrender and retreat from insurgents and Iranians in Iraq is even more significant than it's surrender and retreat in Afghanistan, and pushing the surrender and retreat in South Viet-Nam. Nfitz (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- This had been in the works for years btw. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 19:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to support, as this seems to be a major event for the history of Iraq. Did we post the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021? Of course it's not very similar circumstances but it would give some idea as to prior postings. I can't find it in the posted archive though. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The Taliban offensive in 2021 was posted to ongoing, so it was not posted. After it was removed from ongoing, the 2021 Kabul airport attack was posted to ITN. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support: especially in the context of the Iran War, this is reasonably significant, though an argument could be made that it isn’t that significant. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- What is the argument that it is not significant? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Militant.Insurgency I haven't decided my vote yet, but I'd imagine the argument would be that the end of the deployment doesn't mean a ton given the bulk of US troops were withdrawn years ago; the remaining forces being pulled out now are comparatively a skeleton crew. The Kip (contribs) 06:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- What is the argument that it is not significant? Militant.Insurgency (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work The nominated article doesn't have much to say about the termination of the operation and its significance. It seems to have been largely successful in suppressing ISIS and so it's a backwater now compared to the Iran War. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:39, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues first and foremost, but the removal of forces is more like a footnote at this point than a major conclusion as most combat had stopped long ago. Masem (t) 11:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- oppose per above.Psephguru (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The article needs a complete rewrite, as it is almost entirely WP:PROSELINE. I wouldn't speculate on ITNSIGNIF of an UPDATE that hasn't happened yet, but I will say that the "ceremonial" end of something that actually ended long ago is not very important. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:14, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support was going to nominate this actually. Major event that's receiving global coverage; it's the first time that the US has not had troops in Iraq in over twenty three years and signals a new era in Iraqi history. I have proposed ALT1, which is what I would have worded it as had I nominated it. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 18:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
It's the first time that the US has not had troops in Iraq in over twenty three years.
From NPR:
It's also worth noting that combat operations already ended five years ago. – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 20:00, 30 September 2026 (UTC)This was not the first U.S. military withdrawal from the country. U.S. forces pulled out in 2011, declaring their mission over amid mounting Iraqi political opposition to the presence of U.S. troops. Three years later, the Iraqi government invited them back again to fight ISIS.[1]
- Incorrect; after the 2011 withdrawal, troops still remained attached to the US embassy and Foreign Military Sales. Here, no active military garrisons remain; it's a total withdrawal. Additionally, even if in a purely internal Iraqi context, there hadn't been combat operations in a half a decade, it was still being used in regional combat operations, including the current war, and as such is being heralded as a success for the Irano-Shia militias, while local authorities and Kurds are worried it could spur the rise of a new organization ala ISIS. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 20:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Similar to 2011, there are still troops attached to US embassies (though this is typical for US diplomatic missions). From NBC: "After this week, a smaller contingent of U.S. forces will stay in Iraq to protect American diplomats."[2] – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 21:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's also worth noting, @Nice4What, that we did blurb Withdrawal of United States troops from Iraq (2007–2011), and that the article notes that 17,000 personnel (!) remained in the embassy compound, along with 1,000 in each of Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk, in addition to thousands of defence contractors. I'm not sure how many will remain in the embassy this time, but there were only about 1,000 or so staff last year, and 3,000 defence contractors. This is on a different scale. Nfitz (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Incorrect; after the 2011 withdrawal, troops still remained attached to the US embassy and Foreign Military Sales. Here, no active military garrisons remain; it's a total withdrawal. Additionally, even if in a purely internal Iraqi context, there hadn't been combat operations in a half a decade, it was still being used in regional combat operations, including the current war, and as such is being heralded as a success for the Irano-Shia militias, while local authorities and Kurds are worried it could spur the rise of a new organization ala ISIS. — Knightoftheswords(talk) 20:45, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support on significance International coverage, same importance as the 2020–2021 US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, but the article needs work. ArionStar (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 22:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Knightoftheswords. The significance of this withdrawal is in the culmination of a decadeslong American intervention in Iraq, being one of its longest overseas wars in its history. Oppius Brutus (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support. The withdrawal of the last American troops in Iraq is significant. Romanov loyalist (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- support per all above. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 15:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Once again, there is more talk of the notability than article's quality. I do consider it ITN-worthy, but I think the article leaves a lot to be desired – it amounts to little more than a chronological account of the withdrawals, with little depth regarding the events themselves, their significance or the reactions… _-_Alsor ⭐️⭐️ (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Adrian Rurawhe
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Schwede66 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Kelisi (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: Former Speaker of the House; resigned from Parliament just a few months ago. Schwede66 21:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support - No issues, other than one CN tag in the personal life section. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support the unsourced sentence removed from the article as it wasn't a key piece of information anyway. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note In the section "First term 2014–2017", the second paragraph remains uncited. ErktheBerserker (talk) 09:03, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- I've cited that paragraph. Schwede66 20:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. SpencerT•C 20:50, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
September 29
[edit]|
September 29, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Courtney Meppen-Walter
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Unknown Temptation (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Nfc123 (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: Subject only had one professional club, Carlisle United (2013-2015); I've tried to expand that as far as I can, but the rest of his career might look choppy because there was very little to write about. Even all the obituaries only seem to portray him as a Manchester City youth player who went to jail for causing the deaths of two people in a car crash. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Note page has now been moved, not sure if that changes any technicalities here. Though every source from his life (and bear in mind his name would have had to be confirmed in court) called him Meppen-Walter, the page has been moved because his social media said Meppen-Walters . I would think that WP:ABOUTSELF includes spelling your own name. Unknown Temptation (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Appropriate depth, fully referened. SpencerT•C 20:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – Schwede66 07:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Bangkok floods
[edit]Blurb: Flooding in Thailand caused at least 23 deaths, including four in Bangkok. (Post)
Alternative blurb: At least 23 people died as a result of a flood in Bangkok, Thailand and surrounding area.
- Updated and nominated by MarioJump83 (talk · give credit)
- Created by Pataratorn (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ChomponU Pongsawet (talk · give credit), Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit) and Anna Frodesiak (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Worst flooding in the Bangkok region for fifteen years, and outside impacts are also noteworthy. MarioJump83 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per nom. shane (talk to me if you want!) 15:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above, though the article needs some work before posting. NotKringe (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support Another deadly/impactful flooding. ArionStar (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support The devastating effect in this huge primate city has brought much of the logistics throughout the country almost to a standstill although up here in Kut Phueng we've actually had much less rain than most years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 23:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting Oppose - posted in only a few hours? This seems pretty minor for Bangkok. It's not even a 20-year storm - killing only 4 people in Bangkok. There were 800+ killed in the region in the 2011 flooding. If we lower the bar to anytime there's 4 people killed in a storm in a large city, we'll have to rename the project "Weathapedia". Nfitz (talk) 23:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- No duh wikipedia has information about weather events, especially of this magnitude? even if only 4 people died, imagine the amount of displaced and injured. have you no shame? ~2026-45863-10 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- If we reported every 100-year storm at some locale, we'd be flooded (excuse the pun) with nothing but weather. This isn't even a 20-year storm. And such flooding deaths are, I'm afraid, par for the course. When I used to live in SE Asia, 4 drownings in a storm (normally kids) wouldn't make the local news. This only made the news because it was associated with such good visuals. But such visuals are common enough in G7 countries too , . Can you, User:~2026-45863-10 expand on what you mean by "duh" in this context? Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- No duh wikipedia has information about weather events, especially of this magnitude? even if only 4 people died, imagine the amount of displaced and injured. have you no shame? ~2026-45863-10 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support The international coverage of the flooding focuses on the scale of the people affected, where the entire Bangkok Metropolitan Region has been affected by the floodings. The Thailand government has also responded with flood aid, while disruptions in international air traffic have been reported from the flooding. Clearly impactful and meets the notability requirement for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support It's important to commemorate the victims of the flooding. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- That's not what ITN is for, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, my mistake. In that case I think the other arguments emphasizing inclusion on the basis of RS reporting are compelling. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- That's not what ITN is for, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support - A big news story, internationally reported, with a relatively high number of victims. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Gaza war, Outline of the Gaza war & Gaza genocide
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. Participants are limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion. |
Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk · give credit)
| − | [[2026 Iran war|Iran war]] ([[2026 Lebanon war|Lebanon war]]) [[Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)|Russo-Ukrainian war]] ([[Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian war (1 September 2026 – present)|timeline]]) | + | [[2026 Iran war|Iran war]] ([[2026 Lebanon war|Lebanon war]]) [[Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)|Russo-Ukrainian war]] ([[Timeline of the Russo-Ukrainian war (1 September 2026 – present)|timeline]]) [[Gaza war]] ([[Outline of the Gaza war|outline]], [[Gaza genocide|genocide]]) |
- Comment Amended nomination slightly in line with proposal. Abcmaxx (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - What is the reason, as there been any sort of flare up in the war? If not, then I oppose adding this back. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, no armed conflict has flared up. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose been going on so long without a clear end in sight, and that it doesn't make daily headline news. Ongoing is meant for long running events that likely should have a clear end, but if they keep on going indefinitely, ongoing no longer serves that purpose well. Masem (t) 16:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- According to the NOW Corpus (requires academic affiliation or subscription to access), 239 news articles have been published with the words "Gaza war" this month in their titles, 618 with the words "War in Gaza", 109 with "Gaza genocide", and 479 with "Genocide in Gaza". It is evidently still in the news.
- The idea that this event won't end and therefore should be removed from the "ongoing events" section doesn't make any sense. If it is ongoing with no clear end in sight, why is that anything other than a good reason to add it back to the "Ongoing" section?
- Also consider how the Russo-Ukraine war, which began in 2022 rather than 2023, is still in the ongoing section. Why are we selectively applying arguments to keep the Gaza war removed while not applying the same rationale to remove the Russo-Ukraine war? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough right now to justify "Ongoing". Tradediatalk 17:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, and if there were more updates coming out I would advocate to reduce the number of articles listed to only one or two ✈ mike_gigs talkcontribs 18:07, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's been thousands of updates (on the low end) this month alone, per the above.
- The genocide and war have both individually received substantial coverage, and in accordance with the established de facto policy of the page, it seems like we should add "timeline" as well. Can we at least include these 3? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:12, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Proof here of the frequent updates we're receiving. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support I may be in the minority in this discussion, but this was removed in the first place because editors wrongly believed the genocide was over after the "ceasefire" (or worse, denied that it ever happened in the first place). It's as ongoing as the other wars we've been keeping in Ongoing for months/years. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Adding that Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) would make a good alternative to the Outline article. It's being updated daily. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I support the timeline article instead of the outline article, or the inclusion of both. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- To be honest I think the outline articles, as well as the timeline articles, all belong in this section. These are huge, multifarious topics and we need to make it as easy as possible for readers to access the information they're trying to find. There's not really an intuitive way for a casual reader to know "outline" and "timeline" articles even exist, and this is the perfect place to introduce them to casual readers trying to keep up with current events.
- Can we add Outline of the Russo-Ukrainian war and Outline of the 2026 Iran war to the ongoing events section as well? Speedy consensus here would be nice. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Adding that Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) would make a good alternative to the Outline article. It's being updated daily. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:25, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support as per Vanilla Wizard. The timeline article would be a better candidate than the outline article, given that it is being updated daily. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 01:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Question There's certainly enough coverage of the Israeli genocide. But is there really a war still going on? I really haven't seen much in the way of reports of Hamas still waging war. Any good references to their actions, and what they still occupy? Nfitz (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thats the problem when ongoing events go past 6 months or so - they become background noise from a news perspective. Unlike the Ukraine situation which still dominates headlines despite being several years old (likely because of the larger direct impact on world politics with US and EU involved), events in Gaza don't capture much attention though there is still reporting on them as they happen. Masem (t) 11:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- My understanding is that Israel is currently colonizing the entire Gaza strip, breaking it into five giant columns (military checkpoints/borders controlled by the IDF) in preparation for a permanent on-the-ground occupation. The best case scenario for Gazans in the next few years (assuming the status quo of international inaction/weapons funding remains) is becoming a permanent underclass in an apartheid system with a subtle systematic ethnic cleansing, slowly driving them out while upper-class non-Palestinians move into wealthy apartments, throwing their trash out their windows into the slums occupied by the oppressed Gazans below (like today's West Bank). The worst case scenario is that the genocide will continue until all Palestinians are refugees or dead, because they want to "start fresh" on the Gaza strip. We should keep an eye out for any significant articles written about the occupation (which will mark a transition from the "Gaza war and genocide" to the "Gaza occupation and genocide" in the timeline, which currently is stationed here which is lackluster coverage in its current state), but until that happens, we should keep using the Gaza war as our primary article reference point for the ongoing situation in my view. I frequently work with related articles and Gaza war is considered the parent article for essentially everything that has happened from Oct 7 to now, including the October 7 attacks article, the Gaza genocide article, and any other related articles. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that the Israeli genocide continues ... but people are seeking links for both the genocide AND the war. And I'm not seeing anything here indicating there's really a war going on. One-sided ethnic cleansing isn't a war. Structural issues in the articles shouldn't bring multiple links to ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is true, though if I'm not mistaken, this was one of the reasons why the war article was moved to "Gaza war" from "Israel-Hamas war". Everything that's occurred after the Oct 7 attacks, i.e. everything covered by the scope of that article, has been completely one-sided. It's a war on Gaza. There's maybe a case for renaming the article to something more along the lines of "Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza (2023-present)", but Gaza war is more WP:CONCISE and the term war is used enough in news media that I doubt that proposal would get very far. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The question remains, why would we ongoing a war that doesn't appear to be ongoing. Rather than just ongoing the genocide? Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Well, the timeline article for the "war" is suitably updated for ongoing at least. I don't think we have a separate timeline for the genocide specifically. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Is it updated @Vanilla Wizard? I see one for a conflict (Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2026), but not one for a war; did I miss an article. Nor are the recent updates characteristic of a war. It also hasn't been updated in 20 days. On one hand, some of my comment sounds pedantic, on the other hand, we are debating putting the word "war" in the Ongoing blurb. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Re
did I miss an article
@Nfitz I had in mind Timeline of the Gaza war (3 October 2025 – present) which is being updated every day Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:33, 1 October 2026 (UTC)- Ah, thanks. Very arbitrary dates. I went through the September entries (I hadn't actually realized that there were actually people called Hamas - confusing), but the entries that sounded as if they might be actual war were all in Lebanon - which isn't even near Gaza. Everything else is just Israel killing women, children, paramedics, and stuff that appears to be more like summary executions of people alleged to have done bad things in the past. Again, I see no actual war in Gaza. So we shouldn't be having the war in the blurb. And this appears to not be an appropriate timeline for the Genocide - some of it might be, but some isn't in, or perhaps even related to, Gaza. Gosh, these articles are a mess. Nfitz (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- To be frank I agree with you that there isn't a war and that the events from October 7 to now are best described as a genocide. I even believe even calling it a "war" at any point in time is misleading. It's simply that as someone who has been through the ringer in the article space, my understanding is that current Wiki consensus considers the Gaza genocide to be a subset of the Gaza war. This is the main reason why articles like Gaza war protests aren't instead called Gaza genocide protests - because technically, according to Wiki consensus in previous RfCs, all of the protests were against the Gaza war, but only a subset of those protests were against the Gaza genocide.
- I have argued against this characterization, and I won't argue in its favor here. If there's consensus for including Gaza genocide but not Gaza war, I'll certainly support it. It's simply that I can easily foresee people coming in and arguing we are violating consensus by adding only the "Gaza genocide" when more RS are characterizing it as the "Gaza war" as of lately. The propaganda model explains this phenomenon of delegitimizing the Gaza genocide with whitewashed language like "war" very well, but I've never been able to convince anyone to go against the majority characterization of RS on the topic due to systematic bias in reporting. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- In order to resolve this question since there hasn't been a discussion about this topic in a while, maybe a new RfC is due. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. Very arbitrary dates. I went through the September entries (I hadn't actually realized that there were actually people called Hamas - confusing), but the entries that sounded as if they might be actual war were all in Lebanon - which isn't even near Gaza. Everything else is just Israel killing women, children, paramedics, and stuff that appears to be more like summary executions of people alleged to have done bad things in the past. Again, I see no actual war in Gaza. So we shouldn't be having the war in the blurb. And this appears to not be an appropriate timeline for the Genocide - some of it might be, but some isn't in, or perhaps even related to, Gaza. Gosh, these articles are a mess. Nfitz (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Re
- Is it updated @Vanilla Wizard? I see one for a conflict (Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2026), but not one for a war; did I miss an article. Nor are the recent updates characteristic of a war. It also hasn't been updated in 20 days. On one hand, some of my comment sounds pedantic, on the other hand, we are debating putting the word "war" in the Ongoing blurb. Nfitz (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Well, the timeline article for the "war" is suitably updated for ongoing at least. I don't think we have a separate timeline for the genocide specifically. Vanilla Wizard 💙 20:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The question remains, why would we ongoing a war that doesn't appear to be ongoing. Rather than just ongoing the genocide? Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is true, though if I'm not mistaken, this was one of the reasons why the war article was moved to "Gaza war" from "Israel-Hamas war". Everything that's occurred after the Oct 7 attacks, i.e. everything covered by the scope of that article, has been completely one-sided. It's a war on Gaza. There's maybe a case for renaming the article to something more along the lines of "Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza (2023-present)", but Gaza war is more WP:CONCISE and the term war is used enough in news media that I doubt that proposal would get very far. Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:06, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that the Israeli genocide continues ... but people are seeking links for both the genocide AND the war. And I'm not seeing anything here indicating there's really a war going on. One-sided ethnic cleansing isn't a war. Structural issues in the articles shouldn't bring multiple links to ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose While there is still some action, the war itself is mostly out of the news by this point. The few updates that there are to the timeline article are just little targeted bombings that kill a commander or two, not sustained action. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- There are thousands of news articles about it this month alone, per the above. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- As pure numbers, those mean nothing. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Seeing as I'm the person who started this discussion and how I know a lot about the article space and the recent consensus on common issues regarding the Gaza war/genocide topic in Wikipedia, I think it's reasonable that I give a few comments that provide in-depth introductory context and arguments for the sake of facilitating subsequent discussion.
- If we aren't going by pure numbers, what do you suggest we go by? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Depth of coverage. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of reports “mention” Gaza, if they don’t say much about it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- How do we measure depth of coverage? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- While it’s not about this in particular, WP:DEPTH can give a good start. But as I said, just the numbers say almost nothing. Most of those hits are probably for barely-related items. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not satisfied with that answer. What do you suggest we do to determine whether this article should be included? Because right now you are saying thousands of news articles mentioning a topic does not mean the topic is receiving significant news coverage, and you are not providing any alternative ways to determine whether there is significant coverage. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thousands of articles mentioning it at least once, mostly in passing, do not indicate the large-scale coverage that we expect for ITN Ongoing. For Ongoing I would expect daily or near-daily updates that are relevant to the event, included in the article. I would also expect the coverage presented to show detail and depth of events that are of the topic itself. The numbers shown could mean anything - a small protest in New York that gets picked up by a local outlet would be included in that number, but of course it does not confer notability to the event on the whole. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
For Ongoing I would expect daily or near-daily updates that are relevant to the event
Again, it's unclear on what basis you have determined daily updates are not coming out regarding Gaza while daily updates are coming out for Ukraine. According to the NOW corpus, the "Ukraine war" has 5 mentions today in news articles and "war in Ukraine" has 25. The "Gaza war" has 3, and the "war in Gaza" has 13. "Gaza genocide" has 7 and "genocide in Gaza" has 14. Combined the sums are pretty similar (37 Gaza vs 30 Ukraine), so again the only data we have suggests you are incorrect. I understand you don't agree with the methods being used, but you have still not provided any quantitative alternatives for analyzing whether a topic is still in the news and I am still waiting for any sort of suggestion that would allow us to put this to rest that does not depend on subjective analysis. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thousands of articles mentioning it at least once, mostly in passing, do not indicate the large-scale coverage that we expect for ITN Ongoing. For Ongoing I would expect daily or near-daily updates that are relevant to the event, included in the article. I would also expect the coverage presented to show detail and depth of events that are of the topic itself. The numbers shown could mean anything - a small protest in New York that gets picked up by a local outlet would be included in that number, but of course it does not confer notability to the event on the whole. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not satisfied with that answer. What do you suggest we do to determine whether this article should be included? Because right now you are saying thousands of news articles mentioning a topic does not mean the topic is receiving significant news coverage, and you are not providing any alternative ways to determine whether there is significant coverage. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- While it’s not about this in particular, WP:DEPTH can give a good start. But as I said, just the numbers say almost nothing. Most of those hits are probably for barely-related items. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:44, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- How do we measure depth of coverage? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Depth of coverage. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of reports “mention” Gaza, if they don’t say much about it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:19, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- As pure numbers, those mean nothing. Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- There are thousands of news articles about it this month alone, per the above. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Support It probably shouldn’t have been removed. Same goes for Sudan and Congo genocides. -TenorTwelve (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Chorchapu. Khuft (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Support per VanillaWizard. It's clearly still ongoing despite it nominally being a "ceasefire", it still gets regular coverage from outlets like Reuters, and the articles relating to it still receive updates. Mount Patagonia (talk • contributions) 22:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The primary timeline hasn't been updated in about 3 weeks, @Mount Patagonia. Updates are too frequent. Also, are massacres a war? I don't see much in the way of updates at all about Hamas actions, and those this month all seem to be Israelis shooting women and children, arresting people for past (not present) actions, and ethnic cleansing by settlers; none of those are war. I'm find with a simple link for Genocide. Nfitz (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose There doesn't seem to be much significant updates beyond Israel's continued occupation in Gaza since the first phase of the ceasefire is still frozen. Also, ongoing requires regular updates to the article. The Lebanon War has now been removed from ongoing ever since much of the action died down, but that doesn't mean that front is entirely over. And the Sudanese Civil War and the massacres are still ongoing, but not on the main page. The occupation in Gaza and the settler violence in the West Bank are unfortunately norms of the wider Israel-Palestine conflict. Simply put, there doesn't seem to be any larger flare-ups beyond the occasional skirmish or bombings.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:37, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
References
[edit]Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents:
- ↑ Jane Arraf (30 September 2026). "The U.S. military withdraws from Iraq over 2 decades after its invasion". NPR.
- ↑ Alexander Smith; Helen Graham (30 September 2026). "U.S. ends ISIS-fighting mission in Iraq as regional security fears mount". NBC News.