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 source]
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 source]
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 source]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit source]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 source]
Please do not...[edit source]
Suggesting updates[edit source]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Structure
[edit source]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.
July 18
[edit source]|
July 18, 2026 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Politics and elections
Science and technology
|
US/Iran memorandum declared suspended
[edit source]Blurb: Following US President Donald Trump, Iran declared the Islamabad Memorandum suspended amid renewed fighting. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Should never have posted it being still born (it was posted?), anyhoo, both sides say it is not active and it has been 7 (8 tonight) days of tit-for-tat attacks and reaction that has not been posted..Casualties in Iran (non-civilian) and usa. Iran also said it would upp the ante to yankees in the middle east. So far that is just rhetoric though. Psephguru (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Considering the fact that the original "deal" was not posted in June, I am not inclined to support it this time. Back then, the primary argument against posting was that it was just diplomatic posturing with little impact on the actual war and situation around Hormuz. The same is more or less true now. The war has all but restarted and both sides were shooting at each other well before this deal was called off. In effect, this suspension has little real impact on the war, and in all likelihood a new "deal" will be announced in the coming days. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:29, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose This is covered by ongoing. ~2026-40459-11 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
New World Record for fastest mile
[edit source]Blurb: British runner Josh Kerr runs the fastest mile in human history. (Post)
Alternative blurb: British runner Josh Kerr breaks the mile run world record.
- Nominated by Bzweebl (talk · give credit)
- Created by Pietaster (talk · give credit)
- Updated by AFogelson (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: One of the most famous and prestigious records in running. Previous record was set in 1999 (potentially drug-enhanced) and stood for 27 years until today. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support on significance. Kerr's article seems solid. Blythwood (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support one of the most significant and long standing records in athletics. Amazing it’s taken so long to be broken. Article looks in good shape. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support A breath amidst death-related events. ArionStar (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support A clearly-tracked achievement (this used to be the four-minute mile years ago). It would be nice if the records page could also be featured but that needs work, and Kerr's article works for now. Masem (t) 19:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability, oppose on quality Great story and a significant achievement. However, Kerr's article needs work. There are several unref statements in the body and the tables at the end need citing as well. Also, would it be beneficial to state the record time in the blurb? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:31, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. There are only 3 sentences about it in the target article, 2 of which are just about him announcing his plan to do this. We expect full write-ups from our other sports related ITN articles, I don't think this should be an exception. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 20:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- What else can be said? The who/when/where/what/how is all answered and given its a short race, it doesn't make sense for a recap. The update is sufficient for this type of news. Masem (t) 22:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
July 17
[edit source]|
July 17, 2026 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
International relations
Politics and elections
|
RD: Moses Ali
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Jeromi Mikhael (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: Ugandan deputy prime minister Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 15:25, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Bohumil Vacík
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Created and nominated by Fixer88 (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: Vacík was a serial killer convicted of the murder of four people between 1994 and 1995. Fixer88 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Well-developed article. Yakikaki (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support 5263 characters (889 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Grimes2 19:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
(Blurb ready) RD/blurb: Garfield Sobers
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Cricketer Garry Sobers (pictured) dies at the age of 89. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Barbadian cricketer Garfield Sobers (pictured) dies at the age of 89.
- Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jeswinj (talk · give credit), ~2026-40376-48 (talk · give credit), ItsShandog (talk · give credit), Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 (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: He was the greatest all rounder in test cricket history with double of 8000 test runs and 200 test wickets and was in conversation for the greatest all rounder in test history levelled with Jacques Kallis. Abishe (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb The subject is vital and a credible candidate for Greatest of All Time in his field. The article looks good too. I'm loving his full name now I see it too: "The Right Excellent Sir Garfield St Aubrun Sobers". It's a shame the article doesn't have a picture showing him at bat though so I'll see what more is out there. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:42, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- For the record, note that the blurb was first suggested with the lead image at the time, which showed the subject in 2012 (pictured). That seemed quite a good photo but it has been switched in the article for the B&W image showing the subject 56 years earlier. I don't have strong feelings about this myself but we should show the history of nomination versions for clarity. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't initially think of going for the blurb option before nominating. He was rated one of Wisden's five cricketers of the 20th century for his blistering test career. He was easily the greatest sportsperson to emerge from Barbados. His name and legacy has been etched in many honorary recognition lists including the test cricket series played between Sri Lanka and the West Indies which has been named after him and Michael Tissera as Sobers–Tissera Trophy. It was coinciding that the Sobers–Tissera Trophy was played not too long ago before the passing of Sir Garfield Sobers. Thank you @Andrew Davidson: for suggesting alternate option and I wonder whether this will get much notice at the time of 2026 FIFA World Cup where football takes center stage. Abishe (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- "If you don't ask, you don't get." I'm not much of a cricket fan but this guy was clearly one of the sport's greats and one of nature's gentlemen too, I gather.
- I went through the article and only found one {{cn}} which I have resolved. It otherwise looked to be in great shape.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 16:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb as he is almost a uniquely celebrated cricketer. He was named one of the 5 Wisden cricketers on the century and was named a national hero of Barbados. Pi (Talk to me!) 16:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Article in shape (aside from two minor cn tags) and it does demonstrate why Sobers was an influential cricketer. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb. For those in the US unfamiliar with cricket, think along the lines of Babe Ruth. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- That would only be valid if Babe Ruth had also been a top level pitcher. Sobers was better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- He was (speaking of Babe Ruth)? Ruth was a good-great pitcher before he switched to hitting exclusively. Natg 19 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed; he was a star pitcher for the Boston Red Sox. There's another sort of all-rounder in baseball and that's the 5-tool player. Willie Mays is the archetype there but he didn't pitch. Sobers was the complete package as he could bat, bowl and field. He also played football for his country, making him comparable with Bo Jackson too. Andrew🐉(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- He was (speaking of Babe Ruth)? Ruth was a good-great pitcher before he switched to hitting exclusively. Natg 19 (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- That would only be valid if Babe Ruth had also been a top level pitcher. Sobers was better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Willie Mays is probably a better comparison. Best player of the latter half of the century, when the game was spreading more globally, with all-around talent. Babe Ruth is analogous to Don Bradman, consensus greatest ever who played in the first half of the century but with batting abilities well ahead of his time. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - if he is blurbed, it should use the name that matches his article - Garfield Sobers; a 2019 RM concluded that this remains the common name over "Garry Sobers". Article is in decent shape, just a couple of citations needed and one "dubious" tag. — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- The Times has "Garry Sobers, West Indies cricket legend, dies aged 89"
- The Telegraph has "Sir Garfield Sobers, the first player to hit six sixes in an over, dies at 89"
- The Guardian has "Sir Garry Sobers obituary"
- The BBC has "West Indies legend Sobers dies aged 89"
- There's no clear consensus, it seems. I still like "The Right Excellent Sir Garfield St Aubrun Sobers" best.
- But notice that none of those headlines have "Barbadian". That wasn't in the primary blurb that I wrote as I don't like such nationalist labels. I'm reverting whoever inserted it.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- And now there's another RM for Garry Sobers, started by Billsmith60. See WP:INTODARKNESS... Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb for being top of his field (cricket). Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality but otherwise support blurb There are a handful of cns and other tags that must be fixed. But the legacy section explains why he is significant and meets the major figure (it could be improved but suffficient). Masem (t) 18:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Masem: Removed citation needed statements that couldn't be verified after researching. Expanded the legacy section a bit more. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Looks good now. Masem (t) 19:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Masem: Removed citation needed statements that couldn't be verified after researching. Expanded the legacy section a bit more. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Endorse blurb no issues seemingly with the article, figure is certainly top of their field and a national hero. Textbook RD blurb case. — Knightoftheswords 19:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Listed as Level 5 Vital (and was Level 4 Vital before the vital articles project decided to massively cut the number of Level 4 athletes) and his article lays out a very strong argument for a blurb. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose blurb Important to cricket maybe, but a head of state he is not. Death not notable as event. OLDMANDIES. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Very famous cricketeer, considered one of the best ever. On the quality side it also appears to meet our standards. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:46, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb - The coverage universally describes him as one of the greatest all-rounders in the sport ever, if not the greatest. GenevieveDEon (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: Natg 19 (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blub GOAT candidate in the second most popular sport in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39411-22 (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not a household name outside cricket. No international coverage outside countries where cricket is popular from what I could find. ~2026-40459-11 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Given that cricket is played in more than half the nations (ICC has 111 member nations), this is a nonsense reason. Masem (t) 22:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: Brenda Fricker
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and 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: Irish actress best known for her Oscar‑winning role in My Left Foot. She also appeared in The Field, Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, So I Married an Axe Murderer, and Angels in the Outfield. ItsShandog (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is well sourced and comprehensive. Some claims in the introduction were uncited but sourced later in the article, so I cited them there.
- Snosibsnob (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Andy Burnham becomes Labour Party leader
[edit source]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: Andy Burnham becomes leader of the governing Labour Party, succeeding Keir Starmer. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Andy Burnham is elected unopposed as leader of the British Labour Party, succeeding Keir Starmer.
Alternative blurb 2: The governing Labour Party names Andy Burnham as its new leader following the 2026 Labour Party leadership election.
- Nominated by ItsMeGabeProductions (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose until he is officially confirmed PM. NotKringe (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - per fact he becomes PM on Monday. Support on Monday in principle. Becoming leader of a party is not enough.BabbaQ (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait until he becomes prime minister, which should be on Monday. Modest Genius talk 12:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait until he becomes PM. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait and close until Monday. Per BabbaQ, what’s notable is Burnham becoming PM. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
July 16
[edit source]|
July 16, 2026 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Enrique Bacigalupo
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Updated and nominated by GreenLipstickLesbian (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: Argentine lawyer, criminal law professor, and magistrate on the Supreme Court of Spain until 2011. I've still got a few details I'd like to expand on in the article, but I hope this is presentable GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: John Esposito
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Vice regent (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: Quite a significant scholar VR 23:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose While at first glance it appears fully sourced, digging deeper I find issues with verifiability. In the "Life and career" section, paragraphs 2 and 3 are almost entirely unsupported by their references. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:21, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Nicaragua severs relations with Italy
[edit source]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: Nicaragua severs relations with Italy following Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani's demand for the extradition of the naturalized Nicaraguan alleged killer of Aldo Moro. (Post)
- Updated and nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose Other than the table, the article (the prose) is almost entirely unreferenced. Redlink. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment – @Psephguru: Derecognition is wholly different from cutting/suspending diplomatic relations, which happens quite often. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Likely notable, I'm surprised we don't have an article here regarding the relations between these countries (very ubiquitous at enwiki). Though I'd note severing relations is not the same as "de-recognization". Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro re
I'm surprised we don't have an article here regarding the relations between these countries (very ubiquitous at enwiki)
- generally those articles have existed for relations between "great powers" and other nations (ex. Ghana-United States relations, China-Djibouti relations, Indonesia-Russia relations), or relations between geopolitical neighbors/rivals/things of that nature owing to history and geography (ex. Guatemala-Mexico relations, Czechia-Slovakia relations, Brazil-Paraguay relations, Botswana-South Africa relations). - Italy and Nicaragua fit neither of those categories, so at least in my opinion it's not terribly surprising. We don't have an article on, say, Brunei-Switzerland relations, or Kyrgyzstan-Spain relations. The only exception I can immediately think of is Germany (debatably so given its prominent position in the EU, Europe, and the world as a whole - it may count as a "great power"), with Template:Foreign relations of Germany filled to the brim. The Kip (contribs) 03:18, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- You're right. Though I'd note that even beyond "great powers" it is mostly upto editorial efforts (and the credit goes to them for it) in creating these articles for I've noticed these even for the most unlikeliest of places one'd expect.
- PS: I'd note that only three great powers (Great power#Aftermath of the Cold War) exist as of now. And the German case is likely to be for its historical status (France and the UK also fall here) and also due to editorial efforts. And a great amount of articles also exist for regional and middle powers (though the latter is ambiguous) but ultimately it boils down to editorial participation which would be skewed towards countries using English (AU/NZ also have a great number of ir articles for e.g.). Gotitbro (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Gotitbro re
- Oppose Not the first time two countries have severed relations in the last few years, and we typically haven't posted them. The Kip (contribs) 03:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, I don't believe it will have a significant effect on the world. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose In 2022, they similarly severed relations with the Netherlands, and in 2024, severed relations with Ecuador. Nicaragua frequently "severs relations" as a diplomacy tactic; each individual instance of this practice is not ITN-worthy. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 17:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per FlipandFlopped. GenevieveDEon (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- snow close already. I don't know how to do it, ut some admin can.Psephguru (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
July 15
[edit source]|
July 15, 2026 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Science and technology
Sports
|
Beta Pictoris d discovered
[edit source]Blurb: Astronomers discover the exoplanet Beta Pictoris d, making the first time moderate-resolution spectroscopy has been used to aid in the direct imaging discovery of a planet. (Post)
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning oppose - The article indicates that another team discovered it simultaneously using a more conventional technique. I'm also a little out of the loop on astrophotography and exoplanet detection these days, and so I'm not sure how significant (or how tightly defined) this 'first' is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Neutral, leaning support, I think the article section is long and good enough to be featured, however I think the blurb is currently a bit too jargony to be meaningful to most readers. ~2026-40459-11 (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I could see this perhaps being significant but the blurb as written is far too dense and does not convey this effectively. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: Hal Williams
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Funcrunch (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR_Chicago_101 (talk · give credit) and Funcrunch (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: Needs a few more citations (and/or pruning of credits) Funcrunch (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
New species of monkey discovered
[edit source]Blurb: New species of colobus monkey, the Likweli, discovered in the Lomami National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A new species of black-and-white colobus monkey, Colobus congoensis, is discovered in the Lomami National Park, Democratic Republic of Congo. Credits:
- Nominated by ~2026-40124-89 (talk · give credit)
- Created by RabidTuberculosis (talk · give credit)
- Updated by UtherSRG (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: A new species of African monkey has been announced. (Article needs to be created, only edits I have performed are on Lomami National Park.) ~2026-40124-89 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support I'm sceptical about new species but this claim seems quite good. The article needs expansion but I expect that there will be plenty of interest in doing this quickly. I've made a start by uploading an image which shows the distinctive orange lips and adding it to the nomination along with a link to the PLOS paper. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose new species of animals are discovered frequently enough [7], and the only reason this seems to be getting extra attention is the fact it was found in the Congo where monkeys are actively hunted; there is no significant impact on our understanding kn evolution or the likely from this. Masem (t) 15:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I assume the reason it is getting extra attention is that it's a large cute mammal, a primate even, and such discoveries are comparatively rare. I completely fail to understand how our collective understanding of anything has any relevance to ITN. ~2026-40124-89 (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Weak Oppose While this is ITN worthy (While species discoveries occur regularly, monkeys in particular are far more rare as the article notes, and not every species discovery needs to impact our understanding of evolution to be significant), I feel like a blurb should at least have an article about the species its talking about, instead of linking to the article for its genus.Snosibsnob (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)- Oppose Routine. New species are being discovered everyday, that it is a monkey shouldn't change anything. Even if we were primate-centric [we aren't :) ] , it should be noted "New primate species continue to be discovered: over 25 species were described in the 2000s, 36 in the 2010s, and six in the 2020s". Gotitbro (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- It is also a non-starter now that the Likweli article doesn't exist. Redirected by UtherSRG with the rationale
Not a valid species per the Mammal WikiProject. Please wait until it is accepted at MDD, or multiple secondary sources.
Gotitbro (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2026 (UTC)- The MDD (Mammal Diversity Database) is updated twice a year. The project describes its rules as "Guidelines". As the secondary sources cited note, the study went into great depth to confirm the species is indeed new. ~2026-40124-89 (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- It is also a non-starter now that the Likweli article doesn't exist. Redirected by UtherSRG with the rationale
- Oppose and close Since the target article has been redirected, the nomination now fails ITNCRIT anyway. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- My supposition is that this would start with the Black-and-white colobus article which is a genus. The species can be developed as a section there and this would be fine for ITN and provide some helpful context about its close relatives. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as routine, even if I hadn't redirected the article. (I also asked the original author if they want their work moved to draft so it can be worked on until it is no longer WP:TOOSOON.)- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)- I now support. The NCBI now lists the species in their database, so that is sufficient to merit an article being created. Of the attempts, the one at Colobus congoensis is quite thorough compared to the stub attempts at Likweli. I have requested, at WP:RMTM, for the article to be moved to the common name. I have also tweaked the "blurb" in the proposal. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Nominator: Opposition based on the fact that countless new species are discovered all the time is simply ridiculous. Only a very select few seem to attract attention beyond the scientists involved, let alone the popular media in general. There seem to be about 50 new mammal species identified a year. But ITN has done new species discoveries before: the Olinguito on 15 August 2013. (Also new dinosaurs!)
- As for my personal involvement, I do not have the time, and probably not the skill, to contribute to a proper article. ~2026-40124-89 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Are you the original author? Please log in to comment and edit. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am simply the nominator, and did some quicky edits on Lomami National Park, nothing more. Just continuing this conversation is more time than I have to spare. ~2026-40124-89 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Are you the original author? Please log in to comment and edit. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle. I actually don't understand the opposes... "new species are discovered all the time"... are they, though? New species the size of a monkey? That make it into the news? That don't just result from DNA testing known populations and finding out "they were different species all along!"? This seems like a genuine discovery, and I believe worthy of posting.
HOWEVER, all that being said, Oppose while there is no article to link to.Khuft (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC) - Support in principle but
Oppose until an article is createdWhile yes, new species are discovered all the time, few are so prominent and garner such large media attention as this has. However our blurb will look rather silly without an article to link to, and our readers (myself included) will not be able to find the relevant information until one is created. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)- I now fully Support following the creation of a pretty good article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Also I don't think a blurb from 13 years ago is a good precedent given the much lower standard back then. NotKringe (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. The Kip (contribs) 20:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle,
oppose on lack of article. I do think this is a good candidate, because new species of a large mammal are rare, and primates get broader attention than (say) beetles or moths.Likweli and colobus congoensis are just redirects to the genus, which has only a single sentence of update. Someone needs to write an article before we could possibly post this.I don't think that needs to wait until an external body approves the species - there are multiple reliable independent sources listed in the nomination, so this passes WP:GNG. And this is undisputedly a separate species, it's not going to become mired in an argument about genetics. Modest Genius talk 13:56, 17 July 2026 (UTC)- The article has been written and seems in good shape, switching to full support. Are we confident in the copyright status of the infobox image? If so, that could be worth posting in the ITN box too. Modest Genius talk 18:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- The infobox image is cropped from the image I uploaded and put in the nomination and genus article. That was cropped from a collage in the PLOS paper and so seems to be CC0. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article has been written and seems in good shape, switching to full support. Are we confident in the copyright status of the infobox image? If so, that could be worth posting in the ITN box too. Modest Genius talk 18:46, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Article created I have started a stub for the article. I plan to expand it significantly very soon but feel free to work on it in the meantime. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:16, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've returned that to a redirect, but to a much more well craft article, at the scientific name. See above (shortly). - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I had not known that an article was already created. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've returned that to a redirect, but to a much more well craft article, at the scientific name. See above (shortly). - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Snosibsnob, Gotitbro, The C of E, Khuft, and Modest Genius: Pinging those who opposed mainly on the basis that there was no article. Now that a well-developed article has been written by RabidTuberculosis, what are your thoughts? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, my oppose was not mainly based on a non-existent article (that was only an afterthought). Gotitbro (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you to all those that worked on the article! I've struck my opposition above. Khuft (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support now that there is a real article. The article is well sourced and appears complete to me. Congrats to the monkeys on being recognized. Snosibsnob (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Now that there's an article, I think this would be an interesting topic to post to ITN Vetrenarisisum (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I've bolded the Lukmeli link in the first blurb. No comment as to which is preferable, the common name or the scientific name. ~2026-40124-89 (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I believe you mean "Likweli". I had to do a double-take.
- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed, though I believe you mean "Likweli". I had to do a double-take.
- Support Good article. ArionStar (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Rather significant. It is only the fifth new species of African monkey to be described in the previous 75 years.Wi1-ch (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - A new species of primate is a big deal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support ITN needs more scientific blurbs and this fits perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-39411-22 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Why does it need more scientific blurbs? Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 17:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
2026 Canadian wildfires
[edit source]Blurb: Toronto is ranked the worst in the world for air quality amid deadly wildfires across Canada (Post)
Alternative blurb: Toronto is placed under an uncommon orange alert due to smoke from wildfires across the country
Alternative blurb 2: Over 800 active wildfires are reported and Toronto is ranked the worst in the world for air quality amid deadly wildfires across Canada Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bloxzge 025 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Earl Andrew (talk · give credit) and ARandomName123 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Toronto is ranked the worst for air quality in the world, with an orange alert in effect. The smoke is being compared to 2023. Smoke has drifted into not only Toronto, but U.S. states such as Michigan, New York, Wisconsin and Minnesota. AQI values in Saginaw are currently over 1,000. Article is also large, with over 60 sources and counting. Bloxzge 025 20:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose "world xxxst" is trivial. And only four deaths have been reported. Every summer, there’s the same debate about the fires in Canada... _-_Alsor (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- It literally has the worst AQI in the world, even worst than D.R. Congo. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- So...? _-_Alsor (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- The problem with such superlatives is someone is always worst. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- It literally has the worst AQI in the world, even worst than D.R. Congo. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, it’s true that Toronto has the shittiest air right now due to many wildfires but unless the wildfires are very significant, then I don’t think this is suitable for itn. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
OpposeMaybe The article doesn't emphasise the air quality in Toronto – the lead doesn't even mention it. My impression from browsing the article is:
- The fires have been burning since May
- There have been fires all over the country
- This year is not record-breaking and so is not special
- Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- There. I mentioned it in the lead. Will expand on the mention as well. Also, the smoke is mentioned in the Ontario and International effects sections. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- The international effects are getting my attention. It merits further discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- There. I mentioned it in the lead. Will expand on the mention as well. Also, the smoke is mentioned in the Ontario and International effects sections. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose It seems the wildfires, while dire, are actually less bad than in 2025 (more area burnt till July during the 2025 Canadian wildfires, if I read this correctly). The fact that the air quality in Toronto is affected this time does not (yet?) warrant posting. Khuft (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wildfires make smoke is not for ITN. Stephen 23:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose and close--I'm not convinced an air quality deterioration event of the caliber this is deserves a feature. The fires themselves are impactful but seem about typical for a wildfire season, per the year-to-date article highlighted. The 2026 season seems in fact less damaging than the 2025 season (minus more fatalities). Bad air quality's perennial in this world, sadly. It's looking like the worst of this is the consistently newsworthy orange skies over a metro, and a few sporadic to widespread cancellations of outdoor events (and as far as I can tell, life goes on in Canada). Nominate again if impacts (deaths, destroyed structures, etc.) materialize. Departure– (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support great, another haze. Scuba 04:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Reconsider This seems to be getting significantly worse as it's affecting the US too and threatening the World Cup final. We should keep the discussion open while its impacts continue to ramp up. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:54, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Don’t be swayed by sensationalism. There haven’t been any major impacts from the fires so far. Summer, climate change… it’s happening in Europe too. It is what it is. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- The World Cup is depending on some rain to clear the air but that's not a sure thing. The point is that this is now impacting much of the continent, not just Toronto. ITN's top blurb is currently a single fire in a pub which killed 33 people and that's comparatively insignificant. Per this study,
We estimate that 5,400 (3,400–7,400) acute deaths in North America and 64,300 (37,800–90,900) chronic deaths in North America and Europe were attributable to PM2.5 exposure to the 2023 Canadian wildfires.
That's about 70,000 deaths from a similar fire season which is a lot more than 33. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- The World Cup is depending on some rain to clear the air but that's not a sure thing. The point is that this is now impacting much of the continent, not just Toronto. ITN's top blurb is currently a single fire in a pub which killed 33 people and that's comparatively insignificant. Per this study,
- Can you point to tangible effects beyond threats and WP:CRYSTAL suggestions of what might manifest later on? I haven't seen anything from that study reported on elsewhere, at least not here. Departure– (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Don’t be swayed by sensationalism. There haven’t been any major impacts from the fires so far. Summer, climate change… it’s happening in Europe too. It is what it is. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
Gibraltar–Spain border fence
[edit source]Blurb: The fence at the Gibraltar–Spain border is removed, allowing free travel between Spain and the British overseas territory of Gibraltar. (Post)
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: Looks like a major milestone in bilateral relations and an issue that stayed unresolved from Brexit until 2025. Celebrations took place. Needs updating though. Brandmeister talk 16:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability A landmark historical event in the history of Iberia which is being widely reported on, but as the nominator has noted, the article needs updating. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - major event, 300 years in the making. Article needs updating. Nfitz (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not quite ready, the article has a bunch of notes, including some CN notes, that needs to be addressed first. ~2026-39883-93 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also the lead suffers from WP:RECENTISM, half of it is about recent developments and it doesn't mention the fence dates back to 1909. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality--far too many uncited claims and cn tags for a feature. No comment on notability at this time. Departure– (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Just one of the Brexit loose ends which doesn't seem to have much impact and I've not noticed any prominent news coverage. The border issue which I have seen multiple reports about is the new Entry/Exit System for the EU which has caused extensive delays and complaints since it was introduced in April. That affects all crossing points for the EU, not just one. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- How is removing a physical border related to the Entry/Exit system @Andrew Davidson? The border has been physical for hundreds of years. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- The fence was put up in 1909, so it's not so old. The new arrangements mean that the Entry/Exit System (EES) will start operating in Gibraltar. For an example of the news coverage about the latter, see EU border check system causes summer travel chaos,
Long queues and missed flights are causing frustration at airports across Europe following the rollout of the EU’s new Entry Exit System (EES).
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)- @Andrew Davidson NOT THAT OLD? 1.2 centuries? And after over 3 centuries of British occupation? Nfitz (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- The fence was put up in 1909, so it's not so old. The new arrangements mean that the Entry/Exit System (EES) will start operating in Gibraltar. For an example of the news coverage about the latter, see EU border check system causes summer travel chaos,
- How is removing a physical border related to the Entry/Exit system @Andrew Davidson? The border has been physical for hundreds of years. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per @Andrew Davidson MrCryptoNerd (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew Yakikaki (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability – Expansion of the Schengen Area (de facto), and we have posted such expansions in January 2023 and January 2025. Spain is also granted controls over customs during the long running Gibraltar dispute. Article will need work. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 01:58, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Nice4What. The Kip (contribs) 03:25, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The article is orange tagged. ArionStar (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Guy Scott
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Updated and nominated by The C of E (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 acting President of Zambia and last white African leader The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support g2g. Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
July 14
[edit source]|
July 14, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Arts and culture
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
(Posted) RD: Little Gerhard
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by BabbaQ (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.
--BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 00:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
2026 Azad Kashmir protests
[edit source]Blurb: Protests continue across Azad Kashmir as demonstrators demand the removal of 12 reserved seats for refugees in the legislative assembly. Several people have been killed in clashes with security forces, prompting authorities to impose a curfew and ban the main protest group. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Clashes erupt in Azad Kashmir as protesters demand the abolition of reserved legislative seats for non-resident refugees, resulting in multiple deaths and a government crackdown.
Alternative blurb 2: In Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, protests demanding political reforms ahead the general election result in several deaths and arrests.
- "Curfew imposed in Azad Kashmir after deadly protests". BBC News. 13 July 2026.
- Nominated by WindSweet2003 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Article has been significantly expanded with multiple reliable sources covering the background, Supreme Court ruling, clashes, and government response. WindSweet2003 (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Lean support This seems significant enough, but the proposed blurbs are way too wordy. NotKringe (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
Support alternative blurb 2ArionStar (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)- @ArionStar: Do not !vote without including your reasons (WP:ITNCDONT). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 06:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Close – This is likely stale. The 2026 Azad Kashmir protests article focuses on events in June, and the two links provided by the nominator are non-existent. According to an actual Al Jazeera story, as of June 30, Kashmir has "return[ed] to daily life after deadly protests".[1] @NotKringe and ArionStar: You both quickly !voted in favor, but much of the article is unsourced. In the future, it would be worth visiting the article first and taking its quality into account in your reasonings. –Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 06:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I was doing a revamped in the article. Wait as a march is set to happen tomorrow. ArionStar (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not notable for ITN.See U in world (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose as stale - the article contains very little to no recent information. The Kip (contribs) 14:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait--while I initially thought this item stale, per others, upon checking it appears one of the involved parties in the protest has issued an ultimatum and is planning to march on Muzaffarabad on 15 July, which could be the update this item needs to become notable if it manifests. As of yet, though, the current protests appear to have mainly occurred in June, so if no big updates come tomorrow, I won't be supporting this item. Departure– (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - This is a small event in the global perspective and not worthy of ITN. MrCryptoNerd (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per MrCyptoNerd. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
July 13
[edit source]|
July 13, 2026 (Monday)
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
|
Sugar detected in interstellar space
[edit source]Blurb: Astronomers detect a erythrulose molecule inside a cloud of gas and dust near the center of the Milky Way, marking the first evidence of sugar in interstellar space. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Astronomers detect sugar in interstellar space for the first time.
- Updated and nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Nice4What (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Historical research. ArionStar (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose As the Nature article points out, this not the first discovery of sugar molecules in outer space. Masem (t) 01:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- First in interstellar space though, which is a bit further away. Stephen 01:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Unless I'm misreading the Nature article, astronomers discovered glycolaldehyde, which is the
simplest sugar-like molecule
but not a "true sugar". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice4What (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC) - Outer space is not the same thing as Interstellar space. 9ninety (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support – Interesting discovery, receiving widespread media coverage, article is updated, and the article is GA status which makes it a nice article to showcase. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose there is no target article for this discovery, we shouldn't just put 'Sugar' on ITN. Scuba 04:01, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Why not? ArionStar (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Scuba, I think the topic is interesting but imo there should be a specific article about the subject in order to post to ITN. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Stand-alone articles are not required for ITN nominations. — Knightoftheswords 20:12, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Why not? ArionStar (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Alternative blurb is confusing since it doesn't specifies which type of sugar was discovered. ArionStar (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see why the specific type of sugar needs to be specified (headlines from Nature and news outlets don't specify erythrulose), and I believe the original blurb is too wordy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Nice4What: to avoid misunderstanding, I've read people asking if it was cane sugar. ArionStar (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see why the specific type of sugar needs to be specified (headlines from Nature and news outlets don't specify erythrulose), and I believe the original blurb is too wordy. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle This is a new and interesting discovery, but an ITN blurb could benefit from having a more specific article to link than Sugar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MtPenguinMonster (talk • contribs) 07:53, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe An article which provides better context is List of interstellar and circumstellar molecules which has been updated with the erythrulose discovery. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- A single entry in a table does not meet WP:ITNUPDATE. Modest Genius talk 12:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - If someone writes an article about this important discovery, it will be good for ITN. MrCryptoNerd (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now per Scuba, I think the bare minimum is a full section to the event in an article, or ideally, a dedicated article for ITN items. ~2026-39883-93 (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- There is Sugar § In interstellar space. – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- that section in Sugar is really awkward. It feels this shpuld be in something like Extraterrestrial life#Search for basic life, which is what this discovery is connected to, is a better target (but there may even be a better one) Masem (t) 20:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- There is Sugar § In interstellar space. – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not seeing any rationale for why this is significant (for astronomy or otherwise). Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Since sugars are one of the key building block molecule for life, it’s discovery will help us understand how life formed and if there is life elsewhere. — Knightoftheswords 20:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support adequate update in the article (new section with two paragraphs). Such a discovery will serve as a major milestone in the search for ET life abd how life on Earth formed. WP:ITNUPDATE declares that non-standalone articles are permitted as long as there are substantive updates, so the arguments against citing a lack of a dedicated article are bogus and at odds with ITN policy. — Knightoftheswords 20:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support as per Knightoftheswords. The discovery is quite significant; also, we often discuss about posting more scientific news to ITN - this one is spot on. Khuft (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support You know what, yes. We could use some milestone scientific/space discoveries on ITN. As Knightoftheswords stated, this is a significant discovery. It’d be nice to see more news like this. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support because this is exactly the sort of thing we should be posting more of, and the target article has been updated with a section about the event as pointed out by Knightoftheswords. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support, assuming we put the target article as sugar#In_interstellar_space rather than just sugar (otherwise readers would have to see sugar canes, sugar-producing countries, and chemistry before reaching the actual subject). I agree that these scientific discoveries should be posted on ITN more often. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Needs Work This is (probably) notable for many in the life sciences and astronomy. ITN needs exciting scientific news instead of just a death and politics ticker. But there are two major issues in my opinion. First, this links to sugar. While Knight is right that is not a requirement, I don't see why this should be an exception to the practice of ITN blurbs having their own article. The biology side of this site is no stranger to giving relatively minor topics standalone pages. Second, the section discussing this on the sugar article is stub sized at best, does not have enough citations (major issue for a science blurb), and most likely to remain close to orphaned (What Links Here can not reveal the backlinks to it). If no article is to be made, at the very least I believe this part should be long enough that it could be a non-stub article, this is essentially the precedent for every nom I've seen over the past few years. It the very least would be good to see more reliable sources than just Nature, Nature articles alone are not notable just because it's a prestigious journal; NYT and AP are not scientific publications. ITN blurbs hinge on their parent article's quality first and foremost and I don't think this is up to it just yet. SmallTestAcount (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't see why this should be an exception to the practice of ITN blurbs having their own article.
It's already normal for blurbs to not always need their own articles... I recommend that you please look at how ITN template currently is. We have a blurb linking to the Russian Olympic Committee article; there was no standalone "2026 International Olympic Committee's provisional lifting of the Russian Olympic Committee's suspension" article created (and it would honestly be pointless to hold up that blurb for that reason). Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:06, 17 July 2026 (UTC)- Yes, and the article was reported as "sugar in space", so sugar is the best target in this case. ArionStar (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- It makes sense to have a dedicated article for extraterrestrial sugar or other organic compounds, it does not make sense to have an article just about the 2026 olympic lifting of the russian olympic committee suspension. If you're so adamant that this topic does not warrant a new dedicated article then I can think of many articles more specific than Sugar, which encompasses everything from economics to chemistry. SmallTestAcount (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, and the article was reported as "sugar in space", so sugar is the best target in this case. ArionStar (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, unimportant scientifically and to the readership, posting more science on ITN is just WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Abductive (reasoning) 12:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, though I welcome more science nominations. There are hundreds of interstellar molecules already known, including several that are larger and more complicated than this one. I'm not seeing anything particularly special about being the first sugar, rather than the first aromatic or first ketone. Sugars are already known in meteorites and asteroid samples. There is no biology in a molecular cloud. This is being reported by Nature because the research paper was in their subsidiary journal Nature Astronomy, so that's far from independent coverage; however there is an independent Guardian article. If this is posted, the target article should be erythrulose (not sugar), which is borderline for quality. Modest Genius talk 12:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support This discovery is probably, dont [sic] get me wrong about this, very unusual. And I think this is also a large milestone for molecule finding FlamingMingo 🦩 21:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - I don't feel a sufficient case for the significance of this discovery has been made. I broadly support Modest Genius' rationale and provisos. GenevieveDEon (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Pedro Ignacio Calderón
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Updated and nominated by GreenLipstickLesbian (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: Argentine conductor; best known for his work with the Buenos Aires Philharmonic and the Argentine National Symphony Orchestra GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. Indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Nansun Shi
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated 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: Article well sourced and updated --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment One-sentence lead is too short and tagged.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: Done. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: David Willey (journalist)
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Updated and nominated by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit), No Swan So Fine (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: British journalist GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 09:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support The article needed an image but I've taken care of it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, by uploading a non-free file. I really wish people would get themselves out of this habit of "oh, this person is dead, I can upload a non-free file of them the very next day and I'm not breaking WP:NFCC at all". Did you check to see if there were any free images available? Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- In this case, I had heard some BBC coverage of the subject following his death and he sounded like a good chap so I was primed to respond to the nomination. When I checked the article, the most glaring issue was the lack of an image and I'm quite familiar with the process for fixing this. I checked the article's talk page which didn't say much. I then added the {{talk page}} template. This creates a standard search link for free images and that didn't find anything. So I searched for a suitable image, found one on a BBC tribute page, cropped it and uploaded it in the usual way.
- My view is that this is the best time to do this per adages such as "strike while the iron is hot" and "never leave for tomorrow that which can be done today". Such deaths usually generate a big spike in views and other activity such as ITN, the updates to Deaths in 2026 and the like. So, this is the best time to make a difference. The alternative would be to put off the task to some arbitrary date in the future but that would be a pointless delay. See WP:BOLD!
- Andrew🐉(talk) 17:18, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, it's always best to ignore a policy today rather than leave it until tomorrow, I find. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, by uploading a non-free file. I really wish people would get themselves out of this habit of "oh, this person is dead, I can upload a non-free file of them the very next day and I'm not breaking WP:NFCC at all". Did you check to see if there were any free images available? Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article looks fine to post, adequately sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
RD/blurb: Sam Neill
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Actor Sam Neill (pictured) dies at the age of 78. (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ItsShandog (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: Needs no introduction. Note that the French language Wikipedia has already posted this on their main page with a photo. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready, RD only Sadly missing too many citations, especially for filmography. Fine actor but not at level deserving of a blurb. yorkshiresky (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- What the fr Wikipedia does is not our concern, and just because they have a photo of him does not make him blurb worthy. Have not assessed readiness in terms of sourcing yet. Natg 19 (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Added some cn tags, as multiple paragraphs in Career section are unsourced. Not ready yet for RD. Natg 19 (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's not just the French Wikipedia. The news only broke 4 hours ago but other language Wikipedias such as German and Dutch have posted this on their main page already. It only seems to be only the English ITN that has so much dysfunctional delay and drama that it can't cope. It's rather like the World Cup. It's not enough to have a great defence but your team has to be able to score goals too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:56, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- As Natg 19 said, what other language Wikipedias do or not do is none of our concern, nor is it a compelling case for why someone deserves or doesn't deserve a blurb. ~2026-39558-43 (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) ~2026-39669-68 (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks. ~2026-39558-43 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- In addition, ITN is not "The News" it is "in the News". We can take time to make sure the article is of the proper quality. And if you don't like how we take our time, start your own version of Wikipedia with the rules you control. Masem (t) 11:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- The picture we have now is great as it shows the star in his prime and is very recognisable. Blurbing the subject is the surest way of getting this picture posted and so that would be much better than RD. Note that the English ITN has been running the same photo of a cricketer for six straight days now and that's not a good look. See WP:LUGO. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is a very poor argument as it doesn't address the issues we have brought up, to just feature a good picture is not a valid reason to blurb a person.
- Moreso, there are better ways replace an ITN images you feel are too old or stale, particularly relating to an ITN item that is about fall off, such as finding good free media relating to any of the other, more recent items on the ITN list, improving articles currently nominated (such as the Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani nomination from yesterday) to increase the chance that consensus is reached to post or nominating new prominent events with media. To avoid WP:Bludgeon, I will not reply further. ~2026-39558-43 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have already posted support for a blurb for Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani but the usual suspects have turned out to obstruct that too. Ideally, we'd have posted at least six different pictures over those six days including other prominent deaths such as Bonnie Tyler, Ann Widdecombe and Lindsey Graham. We should be aiming to post a new picture every day, like every other main page section does. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support for RD MrCryptoNerd (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Do we really need to automatically blurb nominate and start a new blurb discussion every time a famous celebrity dies? I think having this discussion is starting to get rather repetitive at this point. Article is currently not ready due to sourcing issues. Oppose blurb since a) Just being a very prominent actor is not grounds for a blurb b) if another language Wikipedia has blurbed someone is irrelevant to the discussion. ~2026-39558-43 (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment Have we to wait for a blurb rationale here or is this just based on nom whims? Gotitbro (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- 'Andrew feels like it' is sadly the reason for far too much heat without light on this page. It's a significant deterrent to participation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- So, all the many whimsical blurb advocacies in just one week. Now boosted by imbedded pictures to make the "point" in discussion threads. Why should this not be seen as disrupting the ITN process? Gotitbro (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Can’t wait for ANI to inevitably insist there’s zero problems with his behavior yet again. The Kip (contribs) 17:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- 'Andrew feels like it' is sadly the reason for far too much heat without light on this page. It's a significant deterrent to participation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Some awards are non blue linked and thus will need sources (but arguably all pages should be treated as standalone per WP:V so that awards table needs to be sourced. Additionally, his filmography was split off with this news [12] so needs to be reviewed as well, and that is missing the sources for a number of non-blue linked cases. Masem (t) 11:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Quite prolific but not on the "household names" level of notability. NotKringe (talk) 12:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Beg to Differ I would say he was a household name for Jurassic Park alone. As for the blurb discussion, you all figure it out. Ryan Reeder (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Being mostly known for a single film/role is a good sign that this belongs in RD rather than us needlessly dragging on a blurb discussion that'll inevitably end with a "No". Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 21:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Beg to Differ I would say he was a household name for Jurassic Park alone. As for the blurb discussion, you all figure it out. Ryan Reeder (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Neill has significant acting credits among other activities such as winemaking. The article has been looked after well with much attention provided following his death. Qwerty123M (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- "Neill has significant acting credits among other activities such as winemaking."
- What if any of this shows WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE? Gotitbro (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- The page you have cited does not have strict criteria for significance, it says that consensus must be in favour of including a recent death or news event, and that the event must be current. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please read beyond the bullet points. Gotitbro (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Also see WP:ITNRDBLURB. Gotitbro (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- The page you have cited does not have strict criteria for significance, it says that consensus must be in favour of including a recent death or news event, and that the event must be current. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Still some cn tags. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose RD due to missing citations. Oppose blurb per literally everyone above. The Kip (contribs) 17:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Neill was not a household name celebrity. He had a fourth of the pageviews of Brad Pitt yesterday. Elipticon (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- On the day of his death, he had over 180 times more page views than Brad Pitt. That was about 2.5 million making it the most read article on all of Wikipedia by a considerable margin − even more than Lindsey Graham, Ann Widdecombe or any of the World Cup articles. This confirms both that he was very much in the news and regarded as significant by the general readership. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, because he died. I'm sure if Brad Pitt died there would be even more pageviews. I'm referring to the ambient pageviews when neither of those individuals were doing much of anything notable. Elipticon (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- The main point of In the News is to list topics which are in the news. Sam Neill is the centre of attention right now because he's in the news and Brad Pitt isn't. The primary purpose of ITN is
To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
Its purpose is not to be a battleground over who's the Greatest of All Time. Brad Pitt will get his turn in due course. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)- when we are arguing over blurbs, when we have the guaranteed RD line available, yes then these blurb arguments are often coming down to that. Dd blurbs are meant to be exceptional, and we should be looking for the top people in the field, disregarding popularity, fame or association with a famous work. We should always be seeking to assure the quality is there for RD abd not try yo push blurbs for one's that are clearly far below being an exceptional major figure. Masem (t) 12:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- While the English ITN argues, the readership ignores it and just goes to read the article as Sam Neill was the top read article on this Wikipedia for a second day. The English ITN is still showing a very stale picture of a cricketer which is on its 8th day now. That cricket match is now the bottom blurb and is getting next to no readers. The English ITN is broken beyond belief as it's so clearly failing to report what's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- For the bazillionth time, ITN is not there to increase viewcounts. Its to illustrate quality WP articles that are in the news to show WP's dynamic nature, which often aligns with articles that readers are interested in reading, but not always. "To help readers find..." is one of four goals, but those are equally weighted goals, and no one drives that much importance over the others to ignore the other three goals. Masem (t) 11:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- While the English ITN argues, the readership ignores it and just goes to read the article as Sam Neill was the top read article on this Wikipedia for a second day. The English ITN is still showing a very stale picture of a cricketer which is on its 8th day now. That cricket match is now the bottom blurb and is getting next to no readers. The English ITN is broken beyond belief as it's so clearly failing to report what's in the news. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- when we are arguing over blurbs, when we have the guaranteed RD line available, yes then these blurb arguments are often coming down to that. Dd blurbs are meant to be exceptional, and we should be looking for the top people in the field, disregarding popularity, fame or association with a famous work. We should always be seeking to assure the quality is there for RD abd not try yo push blurbs for one's that are clearly far below being an exceptional major figure. Masem (t) 12:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- The main point of In the News is to list topics which are in the news. Sam Neill is the centre of attention right now because he's in the news and Brad Pitt isn't. The primary purpose of ITN is
- Yeah, because he died. I'm sure if Brad Pitt died there would be even more pageviews. I'm referring to the ambient pageviews when neither of those individuals were doing much of anything notable. Elipticon (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- On the day of his death, he had over 180 times more page views than Brad Pitt. That was about 2.5 million making it the most read article on all of Wikipedia by a considerable margin − even more than Lindsey Graham, Ann Widdecombe or any of the World Cup articles. This confirms both that he was very much in the news and regarded as significant by the general readership. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, needs some citation work and then it is ready. Oppose Blurb, per above, we don't need to blurb every single celebrity that dies, that's why RD was created. He is not notable enough for a blurb, despite the fact that he was a somewhat well known actor. LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD once citations are taken care of. MidnightMayhem (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Old american dies This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- First sentence of the article makes it quite clear that he wasn't an American 👍 – Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 21:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Orbitalbuzzsaw may I suggest amending this to "Old Kiwi dies"? Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb We keep debating whether vital 5 celebrities should be blurbed. This persona isn't even vital 5, and is relatively unknown. There's nothing unusual about the nature of the death. If we blurb this, we might as well blurb anyone who dies with screen credits. Nfitz (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Um, no. I'm pretty sure the lead actor of a film that was the highest grossing film ever until Titanic came along is not "relatively unknown". Though I still don't think we should blurb him, it's not for want of worldwide recognisability. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sam Neil was not "relatively unknown". Have you never seen Jurassic Park? (If not, you really should.) voorts (talk/contributions) 21:47, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's no surprise that a person becomes "relatively unknown" when he does not achieve meaningful thing in 33 years. Didgogns (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- ...and that's just a nonsensical comment, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I get that y'all are opposed to a blurb here, but you don't need to lie to make that point. Shit like this is why I avoid ITN. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, @Voorts, I've seen it. In the cinema when it came out, sometime last century. And I wouldn't have nominated him for any acting awards - or any of the rest of the cast. The visual effects were stunning for that era. The only Vital 5 actor in Jurrassic Park was Attenborough - and we didn't blurb him when he died - so why should we blurb a less significant figure! Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I didn't say he deserved an award for his role in that film. I said he's not relatively unknown. A relatively unknown actor wouldn't have their death covered in many major newspapers. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Nfitz, in fairness, Attenborough died when there was still a significance requirement for RDs, which meant the blurb standard was a bit higher at the time. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- In fairness, we had no problem blurbing Carrie Fisher shortly afterwards - who is also Vital 5. The simple answer is that Neill is too insignificant. If he was more significant, he would be Vital 5, like his co-star who predeceased him. Nfitz (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fisher was two years later IIRC. I'm not making the case that Neill should be blurbed, just that pre-2016 precedent doesn't really apply well for death blurb/RD decisions. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- In fairness, we had no problem blurbing Carrie Fisher shortly afterwards - who is also Vital 5. The simple answer is that Neill is too insignificant. If he was more significant, he would be Vital 5, like his co-star who predeceased him. Nfitz (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- It's no surprise that a person becomes "relatively unknown" when he does not achieve meaningful thing in 33 years. Didgogns (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Fame isn't a factor here, significance is (as ambigous that itself maybe). Specifically one which pertains to a BLPs fields of work. Gotitbro (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support: Sam Neill is a noteworthy actor who appeared in multiple countries' productions. His body of work spans five decades, covering both mainstream and more eclectic roles. Great Britain and New Zealand recognised his contributions with an OBE and a KNZM, respectively. Alexanderino (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- An OBE @Didgogns? What kind of criteria is that? UK alone gives out hundreds of OBEs a year, and has been giving them out for over a century. On average, more than one OBE recipient dies every day. If that meant anything, we could fill ITN with nothing but UK OBE deaths. Nfitz (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment OLDMANDIES is a weak argument since if we were to follow this line, Joe Biden will never be blurbed when he dies. ArionStar (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Joe Biden is a former US president. That's different from an actor. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- But you acknowledge implicitly that an "OLD MAN" who dies of natural causes can be notable if his underlying accomplishments and credentials are sufficient. We should just focus on analyzing those underlying factors instead of this constant insistence that old men dying can't ever be ITN-worthy. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- To be honest I think most people are ignoring the OLDMANDIES "argument" now, especially when someone posts "Old American dies", thus showing they haven't even read the article of a British-born New Zealander. Black Kite (talk) 09:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- But you acknowledge implicitly that an "OLD MAN" who dies of natural causes can be notable if his underlying accomplishments and credentials are sufficient. We should just focus on analyzing those underlying factors instead of this constant insistence that old men dying can't ever be ITN-worthy. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Joe Biden is a former US president. That's different from an actor. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support. A prominent actor with an international reputation and a lengthy career. The sourcing on the article looks fine. Yes, his major period of prominence was in the 1990s, but let's not hold that against him. Mackensen (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb On notability. Yes, Jurassic Park is a household name, but it would be hard to convince me that it is because of Sam Niell. Rockview13 (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sam Neill is notable. That's why there's an article about him. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I believe there is an misunderstanding here. Rockview13 does not believe he's notable enough for a blurb. WP:N applies to whether the subject is notable enough for an article, per the very first sentence of the policy. ~2026-39883-93 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Notability is binary. Someone is notable or not. There's no "more or less notable". voorts (talk/contributions) 14:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I believe there is an misunderstanding here. Rockview13 does not believe he's notable enough for a blurb. WP:N applies to whether the subject is notable enough for an article, per the very first sentence of the policy. ~2026-39883-93 (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sam Neill is notable. That's why there's an article about him. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD - Definitely for RD. For which I see a consensus for.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support as a notable actor with a significant, notable body of work. Article has good sourcing, WP:ITNRDBLURB allows for notable individuals to be blurbed as major figures. Happily888 (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support for reasons given above. -- Veggies (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, oppose blurb Article is well written and sourced. However, apart from Jurassic Park, I can't think of any other role that would make him blurb-worthy. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Widely reported on, award-winning, major contributions to New Zealand and to cinema. That's all the bar for RDBlurbs needs to be. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- "Acting credits and accolades" section is only half sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Ground-breaking work in Sleeping Dogs"', Dead Calm, The Piano and The Dish. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Support RD -- The article has been worked on a lot in recent days, and I see no obvious issues with its citations.Renerpho (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC) -- I am changing my vote to Wait. I have been working on adding citations to some of the unreferenced pieces in the awards and nominations section, and have found one win that was actually listed falsely. I tried to remove it, but encountered resistance. I agree with Bagumba below that the remaining citation needed tags need to be resolved first. Renerpho (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC)- Support blurb Extensive filmography. ArionStar (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: At the very least, this article is now ready to be posted to RD. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- No one has addressed my concerns above - the "Awards and nominations received by Sam Neill" is only half sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- It should be sufficiently sourced now. ItsShandog (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, it is good enough. The standard is not (or ought not be) perfection. I have tagged ready for RD. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 17:23, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- It should be sufficiently sourced now. ItsShandog (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- No one has addressed my concerns above - the "Awards and nominations received by Sam Neill" is only half sourced. Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose At least source the remaining items marked "Won" at Sam Neill § Acting credits and accolades.—Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've removed one prize that genuinely seems to have been won by someone else, and added sources for two prizes that were definitely won by Neill. By my count, citations are missing for 3 wins, which seem to have no independent coverage on the internet (meaning they will have to be sourced from print media that's not easily accessible online, or be removed as unverifiable). Renerpho (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Sam_Neill#Published_works section is unreferenced. Removing "ready" given remaining work with referencing before this is ready for posting. SpencerT•C 15:50, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Bangkok pub fire
[edit source]Blurb: At least 33 people are killed and 70 others are injured in a fire at a pub in Bangkok, Thailand. (Post)
Alternative blurb: A fire at a pub in the Chatuchak District of Bangkok, Thailand, kills at least 33 people and injures more than 70 others.
Alternative blurb 2: At least 33 people are killed after a fire engulfs the Rong Beer Na Lat Phrao pub in Bangkok, Thailand. Credits:
- Nominated by ItsMeGabeProductions (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Major deadly fire in Bangkok. At least 27 people killed and over 60 injured at the Rong Beer Na Lat Phrao pub in Chatuchak District overnight. This is one of the deadliest pub fires in Thailand since the 2009 Santika Club fire and has received extensive international coverage. The article is new and has been updated with sources, so should be suitable for ITN. No free image yet for the aftermath, but the article itself meets notability. ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now since the article is quite stubby, but the impact seems to be far-reaching enough within the country. Also I think calling it "Bangkok pub fire" is a bit vague since the venue is referred to as a "beer hall" in Thai source. NotKringe (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems to be a fairly ordinary WP:NEWSEVENT with no lasting significance. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Have we blurbed the Mountain B nightclub fire in the past? This event is often compared to the Lat Phrao fire for how similar it is. I sort of agree with the "no lasting significant" bit since this fire has so many recurring theme with previous pub/bar fires (flammable ceiling, fire start on stage, few exits, etc.), but I disagree on calling this an "ordinary" event with the number of casualties. NotKringe (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- That article was never nominated for procedural reasons due to a previous deletion nomination as quality was stubby at the time, looking at the August 2022 archives. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 08:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Have we blurbed the Mountain B nightclub fire in the past? This event is often compared to the Lat Phrao fire for how similar it is. I sort of agree with the "no lasting significant" bit since this fire has so many recurring theme with previous pub/bar fires (flammable ceiling, fire start on stage, few exits, etc.), but I disagree on calling this an "ordinary" event with the number of casualties. NotKringe (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - this seems to be a significant and unusual disaster. I'm not sure how we'd justify not posting this when we've just posted a fire in Spain with half the number of casualties. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Significant disaster with many casualties that has been covered internationally. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The New York Times compared it to the Swiss fire posted earlier this year:
Mr. Juladit’s findings recalled a fire at a Swiss nightclub recently in which about 40 revelers died during a New Year’s celebration.
[13]—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yeah, fire involving flammable soundproofing is a surprisingly common occurence. NotKringe (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support on Notability, Weak Suport on Quality as article is a bit short but meets the minimum requirements in quality for ITN. R. M. Holda - (talk) 22:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The 2021 Kaohsiung building fire was blurbed and it was of similar, albiet a bit larger, magnitude. SmallTestAcount (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support significant casualties, but ideally the article could be better such as expanding and figuring out the naming. Vetrenarisisum (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - prose is decent enough. Plenty of good sourcing. BabbaQ (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: ~2026-39715-63 (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support per all above. Significant casualties, and article is now updated. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support per all above. The Kip (contribs) 14:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support per all above. The current death toll is 32 according to Reuters MrCryptoNerd (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: The article is ready for posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:15, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Still coverage today,[14] demonstrating WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE notability. Sufficient breadth and quality. Similar 2026 Crans-Montana bar fire in Switzerland was posted this year.—Bagumba (talk) 07:29, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – robertsky (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: Dudley Laufman
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Sdkb (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: One of the most important figures in American folk dance. Sdkb talk 04:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not yet ready Discography is unsourced, and article is a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have significantly expanded the article now and added citations. Sdkb talk 20:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
July 12
[edit source]|
July 12, 2026 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
Health and environment
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
Yulia Svyrydenko steps down as PM of Ukraine
[edit source]Blurb: Yulia Svyrydenko steps down as Prime Minister of Ukraine during a government reshuffle. (Post)
- Nominated by ArionStar (talk · give credit)
ArionStar (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wait until the next Prime Minister has taken office. ~2026-39715-63 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Since we post the primary executive for every country, we generally do not post the lesser executive unless there are some special circumstances. I'm not seeing anything here in that regard. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:53, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- @GreatCaesarsGhost: under what special circumstances? ArionStar (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Anything about the change that the consensus feels raises a routine event to a special one. The death of a long reigning constitutional monarch, fallout of a major ethical scandal, a move by a despot to consolidate power. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @GreatCaesarsGhost: under what special circumstances? ArionStar (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per GCG. The Kip (contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) Wimbledon
[edit source]Blurb: The Wimbledon Championships at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (pictured) are concluded. (Post)
Alternative blurb: In tennis, Linda Nosková and Jannik Sinner (both pictured) win the women's and men's singles respectively at the Wimbledon Championships.
Alternative blurb 2: In tennis, defending champion Jannik Sinner and first-time champion Linda Nosková win the men's and women's singles titles at the 2026 Wimbledon Championships, respectively.
- Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TheVoicelessWriter (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: Wimbledon is over now. There were 20 different championships and so it seems best to summarise the overall event. The pictures we have of the winners of the gentlemen's and ladies singles events don't seem suitable as they were taken elsewhere and they are not wearing white, as is required at this event. The nominated picture was actually taken at this year's championship and so seems the most appropriate of the few that we have, showing players in white on a grass court at the venue. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:54, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've added the standard altblurb. Somebody else will have to go through the effort to make the composite image of the two athletes. I really don't think the location of the event is blurbworthy. Also, in the last decade, the only time the article has been nominated and had good enough quality to post is in 2024. So... not unsurprisingly, this article doesn't yet have enough prose, oppose. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article's prose has been expanded, summarizing every event with appropriate citations. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have added another altblurb; one that is not associated with a picture as I doubt that appropriate non-free images that represent the recent champions at Wimbledon would be available anytime soon. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- ? Both Noskova and Sinner have free images? 1brianm7 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Linda Noskova does not have a free image where she is wearing all-white at Wimbledon. Sinner has one now. Is it really necessary to have them pictured wearing an all-white attire? Because if not, I can make the composite now. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would say it's not necessary for them to be in all-white. IMO the important thing is the person who won the event, not the dress code at the event. Some people seem to disagree, however. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Linda Noskova does not have a free image where she is wearing all-white at Wimbledon. Sinner has one now. Is it really necessary to have them pictured wearing an all-white attire? Because if not, I can make the composite now. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- ? Both Noskova and Sinner have free images? 1brianm7 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- I have replaced the image with pictures of Noskova and Sinner. I believe it is the best and most appropriate choice given the resources we currently have. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose No prose update – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I restored the prose that was removed. Thriley (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weird. I just checked out the talk page and now I'm concerned about ongoing WP:EW. We can't put an article that unstable on the main page. Put me down as +1 that the article needs that prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- The article seems to be stable now. The opposition against the prose has stated their intent to move on from the discussion. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Wow. The Tennis Wikiproject has serious WP:OWN issues.... but maybe the prose can be distributed to the daughter articles and have those featured instead. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- It’s more a particular user rather than the entire project. Tvx1 11:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weird. I just checked out the talk page and now I'm concerned about ongoing WP:EW. We can't put an article that unstable on the main page. Put me down as +1 that the article needs that prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I restored the prose that was removed. Thriley (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
Posted. Despite some earlier wrangling, I see a rough consensus on the talk page that the current updated prose version will be reasonably stable, resolving the basis of opposition here. Left guide (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- What? Posted without a single support? First time I've seen it here. Again: ITN is poorly administered… ArionStar (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind WP:VOTE, which includes (emphasis in original):
Left guide (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2026 (UTC)Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion.
- Please bear in mind WP:VOTE, which includes (emphasis in original):
- Note also that this is WP:ITN/R and so the only issue that matters is quality. The only oppose was about the prose and that was hashed out at the article's talk page. The only other issue was the choice of picture and we have a good result in showing the picture of Sinner in white receiving the actual trophy at the actual event on the actual court. This was a good call; well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 05:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with Andrew here. The only issue at hand was prose, and after TheVoicelessWriter added the prose, the article is good to go. Just because you are not getting what you want/expect does not mean
ITN is poorly administered
. Natg 19 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2026 (UTC) - A further point to note is that we currently seem to have a shortage of admin attention which is tending to make ITN stale and so we shouldn't bite admins who make an effort and take bold action to get something posted if it's uncontroversial. The main point of WP:ITN/R is to fast-track such items without a lot of fuss. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:03, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I would also have posted it. It is ITNR and the prose and quality are easily sufficient. Black Kite (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Post-posting support The previous quality and stability issues have by now been fleshed out. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:59, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Having my pic of Sinner feature on the main page is surely the highlight of my Wikipedia career. If only Wimbledon could grant me tickets to every final in the ballot... ~2026-34145-56 (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Well done. The WMF or WMUK really ought to facilitate the taking of such pictures with some kind of press pass but they haven't been much help in my experience. Myself, I took some pictures of the The Boat Race 2026 which is open to the public but ITN is biased against that event now, alas. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) 2026 Toronto shooting
[edit source]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: 2026 Toronto shooting: At least two people are killed and five others are injured in a mass shooting at the Salsa on St. Clair festival in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Post)
Alternative blurb: 2026 Toronto shooting: A mass shooting at the Salsa on St. Clair festival in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, leaves at least two people dead and five others injured.
Alternative blurb 2: 2026 Toronto shooting: At least two people are killed and five others are injured in a shooting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
- Nominated by Henderson Barbara (talk · give credit)
- Oppose - Relatively minor shooting. With two shooters exchanging gunfire, this is likely gang related and not of any further significance. Nfitz (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Ordinary gunfight which is just a WP:NEWSEVENT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality Very barebones, not quite up to standard that we expect. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Non-notabke Gunfight. ITN is not a crime ticker. Gotitbro (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on both quality and notability. Article has barely 1300 characters, and the shooting was relatively minor as said by Nfitz. R. M. Holda - (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Not convinced as to the true large-scale or long-lasting impact in Canada, or the effects for the wider region. I echo the concerns above about the true scope of this skirmish/shooting, and also concerns about the article's short length. Something this short would be suitable if we posted it an hour after it happened, but it's over 12 hours on from creation and it's still only this long, when more details should have been reported on and added to the article. Departure– (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Lindsey Graham
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated 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: Notable US Senator. Onegreatjoke (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support: As polarizing as he is given the recent political climate in the U.S in regards to his ardent support for Israel (and the fact we've been focused on Mitch McConnell's health over the last three weeks), Graham's passing is almost a sudden curveball that none of us expected. I am not a fan of him, but condolences to his family. User:BaronNishi (talk) 01:53 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support: Article quality is in good shape TheFellaVB (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support: Article is in good shape unlike Lindsey Lukt64 (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - This should be a blurb instead. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support: the article is good and Graham was quite notable in US politics. TheChestertonian (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - per above MrCryptoNerd (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
*Generally fine, but the sections about his committee assignments are lacking sources, so I added a {{refimprove}} tag. Natg 19 (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Section was removed. Natg 19 (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality and specifically with how much time is given on his relationship to Trump. It may be reasonably sourced (overall from the article's perspective), but this article explemifies the problem with lack of care of NPOV in the short term on figures that, from the implicit left-leading perspective we have from the reliable media and WP editors, takes a very overtly critical approach to him. Yes, he has shown a lot of support for Trump in this second admin, and that's definitely documentable, but its overkill here. Add that much of the rest of the page on his political leanings is a mismash of topics without any cohesive thought. I know we're only talking RD here, and the death was unexpected, but this is the type of BLP we needed to be doing much better on from the start. Masem (t) 11:55, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment This is a contentious topic as I suppose it's one of the battlegrounds for the US politics warriors. It's huge and has over 300 citations so working with it would be like trying to turn an oil tanker. It has been orange-tagged since 2021 and so the claims above that it's in good shape should be taken with a pinch of salt. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:08, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, its a good reminder this falls under WP:AP2 from ArbCom. Masem (t) 12:33, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
WeakSupport – Article quality is sufficient for RD, though I agree with Masem that there's an overemphasis on Graham's relationship with Trump. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 13:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)- Support per above, article sufficient for RD. Davey2116 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Support His committee assignments (not controversial) need some additional sources and the table for the recent primary needs a source. Overall the article is pretty solid and sourcing is adequate for RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Done. AsaQuathern (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support committee assignments seemed to be cited. Would support any blurb proposal, internationally known, influential US senator, whose death has received sustained coverage, but would be happy to know others thoughts, since he is kind of a borderline figure. — Knightoftheswords 16:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- CommentCan you name any non-US non-head of government non-head of state politicians who you would support for a blurb in the event of their death that was a result of natural causes? Chrisclear (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Simple: Chrystia Freeland, Ed Miliband, Gerry Adams, Melenchon, Le Pen, Weidel, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage,
Count BinfaceBen Gvir, Preston Manning, Pauline Hanson, etc. to name a few. — Knightoftheswords 05:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)- Speaking as an Australian, blurbing Hanson's death would be very strange indeed. Being a leader of a minor populist party does not warrant a blurb, and neither does being a notable US senator. Loytra✨ 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Speaking as someone on the other side of the world, I'm not sure who the current Australian PM is but I've heard of Pauline Hanson. My impression is that she is a feisty, larger-than-life battle-axe like Ann Widdecombe and so is of special interest. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Speaking as an Australian, blurbing Hanson's death would be very strange indeed. Being a leader of a minor populist party does not warrant a blurb, and neither does being a notable US senator. Loytra✨ 06:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Simple: Chrystia Freeland, Ed Miliband, Gerry Adams, Melenchon, Le Pen, Weidel, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage,
- I wouldn't blurb Graham, he certainly had name recognition and was well-known for his hawkish foreign policy stances, but he wasn't exactly the most transformative figure and likely didn't leave much of a legacy behind. McCain was close to a blurb because of how big of a news story his death was, and the only other senate members I'd blurb are McConnell and probably also Sanders, but we'll cross those bridges when we get to them; the point I'm making here is just that Graham wasn't at the top of the list of most effective or influential legislators so it'd be too US-centric for us to blurb him. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- CommentCan you name any non-US non-head of government non-head of state politicians who you would support for a blurb in the event of their death that was a result of natural causes? Chrisclear (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Although a polarising figure in US politics, article is in good shape in my view. User: Kampolama (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Article in decently shape, being a polarizing figure has no bearing on an RD post. However, there's an orange expand section on the section of his house tenure, a broken ref at section Relationship with Donald Trump that needs someone more technical than I to fix, and I do roughly agree with Masem's concerns about the article's overemphasis on his relationship with Trump (though I haven't looked into it too much, I can tell something's not right as-is). Departure– (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Admin comment The section "Tenure" has been orange-tagged for the last five years. That tag needs to go before it's eligible for posting to the main page. Schwede66 18:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment It appears that at this point, the nomination was unilaterally changed from "RD" to "RD/Blurb". This is obviously a problem because there is some ambiguity regarding what editors are expressing the support or opposition to above. Chrisclear (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - we keep hearing that some lower level politicians and others should be blurbed because of the nature of their death. But here we have an old man who died of natural causes. The news is nothing about the nature of their death. We can't post every politican who dies of old age - even if they are controversial. Nfitz (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment This isn't a GAR, the fact that it's "too focused on his relationship with Trump" does not disqualify it from RD. Fix the tags and it will be fine. And we all know a blurb isn't happening, so let's not waste our breaths discussing it. Mlb96 (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- If there's too much obvious NPOV or NOR problems, that needs fixing. I'm not asking for a GA quality, but this still falls under BLP so there needs to be far more care on those quality issues even for an RD. This is an exceptional case for an RD, where normally we're begging for sources, but the rest of the article is fine. Here, sourcing is nearly there but the article begs many issues under BLP and NPOV that should be fixed even before posting as RD. Masem (t) 03:31, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Major news as it is, this is still textbook OLDMANDIES and NTRUMP This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not a head of state, not a head of government, ergo not worthy of a blurb. Chrisclear (talk) 04:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb Not noteworthy enough in an intermational context. Agree with Nfitz. Mir Novov (contribs | talk) 04:42, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Weak Support His death still does not have the full details, however the quality of the article is good enough. CatPerson987 (Talk) 06:27, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Sorry why is everyone hopping in to say "Oppose blurb"? It's not being nominated for a blurb, at the very least the people commenting "Oppose blurb" should at least add on they support recent deaths since it very much so should be featured there. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Because someone added it to the header without actually proposing a blurb, simply because a few people mentioned a blurb. I've removed it from the header now as there's no chance of a blurb. jcgoble3 (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, Oppose blurb, good enough shape for RD. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD as per above. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I won't vote because I know little about the requirements for RD/ITN, and don't intend to learn, but I must point out that he is one of the few US senators whose death could make it to the BBC news when most of the rest of the bulletin is taken up with the developments (or non-developments) in the Ann Widdecombe murder case. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've not seen much coverage in the UK but notice that he was the top read article by a considerable margin yesterday with over 2.5 million views, which is huge as these things go. Looking at views in other languages, the biggest interest was in Russian and I suppose that's because he was a hawk about the Ukraine war. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose blurb - He was simply a sitting member of the legislature, and while his death was sudden and unexpected, there's nothing to indicate that it was unusual beyond that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD per others' arguments. It Is Me Here (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Procedural Note As it stands, this is only an RD nomination and there has been no blurb proposal. When it is just an RD nom, !votes should be confined to whether the Lindsay Graham article meets minimum quality standards, as per WP:ITNRD. Supporting a blurb but not actually amending the nomination to include a proposed blurb results in confusion and makes the voting process less clear. In future, I'd respectfully suggest that if you want to expand an RD nom to include a blurb, write a blurb and add a field to the nomination template with the text of the proposed blurb. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 15:57, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, some people commented that they would support a blurb if it was a blurb nomination, so a user added it to the header, then another removed it from the header, and then another reverted it and added it to the header, and then many editors opposed adding a blurb, and then jcgoble3 removed it from the header saying it was certain to fail, and now because a bunch of editors opposed a blurb now people are opposing it even though its been removed. A very confusing process indeed, even with the full context. Throughout the process, nobody did go to the effort of adding a blurb, though. Support RD, quality is fine (if a sprawling 13,000 words), and I think the comments about the Trump section being too large are incorrect, such coverage has made up the bulk of recent coverage in his life and we are probably underserving with our content given how much obits have focused on it. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD Following the "Tenure" section expansion, I think safe to move forward on RD. The article holds enough weight for a RD as it stands. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD Definitely up to RD standard now. BabbaQ (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD I agree with Masem in principal, but I don't think it makes sense to deny this one while we post an article like Reneta Ford if our intent is to showcase quality items. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: Nom is ready for RD. ~2026-39883-93 (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD Glad to see that the House tenure section was expanded to address the orange tag, but honestly the section in question was already longer than equivalent sections for most other legislators who spent a similar amount of time in the House, so that shouldn't have been a deal-breaker that prevented us from posting. Also seconding what 1brianm7 said above: there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a fairly long section about his complicated relationship with the president when this is undoubtedly the main thing RS coverage of this politician focused on throughout the final decade of his life, clearly a very important part of the story of his political career, and the entire article is lengthy enough that this section isn't disproportionately long. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- except that section is all proseline. It makes it read as putting every possible instance where Graham and Trump are reported in the same news report is added (a common npov issue) and stands out like a sore thumb given the rest if the article avoids proseline. If it was written more narratively, not focused on individual events or quotes but the overall way it changed that would be far more appropriate for quality. Masem (t) 16:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- I miss the old {{proseline}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
stands out like a sore thumb given the rest if the article avoids proseline
A quick skim of the page shows this isn't true. The "relationship with Trump" section looks no different from the rest of the page. You could argue that means the whole page is bad, but "too many sentences begin with a date" is at worst a "yellow tag" issue, not a problem so severe that it means the page isn't presentable for readers. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- except that section is all proseline. It makes it read as putting every possible instance where Graham and Trump are reported in the same news report is added (a common npov issue) and stands out like a sore thumb given the rest if the article avoids proseline. If it was written more narratively, not focused on individual events or quotes but the overall way it changed that would be far more appropriate for quality. Masem (t) 16:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Prominent senator; article in good shape for RD. Noon (talk) 11:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted RD. Black Kite (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: Muhammad Jamiruddin Sircar
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by GreenLipstickLesbian (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 acting president of Bangladesh. Article needs some work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:39, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - Several unsourced sections.BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
(Blurb posted) Blurb/RD: Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Former Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani (pictured) dies at the age of 74. (Post)
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (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 Emir of Qatar. Article needs some work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Extremely notable recent death for a former ruler of a country Stunts1990 (talk) 06:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose on quality Article has some unsourced statements throughout the article.Would support blurb seeing how he was the country’s emir for nearly twenty years and based on the article he really did reshape the country’s global and financial presence to what it is today. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2026 (UTC)- Support blurb, assuming the article is adequately sourced. Hamad was a transformative figure for Qatar in so many ways that trying to enumerate them all would require more bandwidth than is reasonable for an ITN discussion. Kurtis (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb The subject is vital and clearly made quite an impact. The establishment of Al Jazeera was quite significant, for example, as it's one of the major news sources that I tend to check for ITN purposes. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Without prejudice to the possibility of a blurb, I'm bound to observe that the impact his work had on your life specifically (or mine, or any other individual wikipedian's) cannot be a credible criterion of significance. GenevieveDEon (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose RD on quality Several sections unsourced. Oppose blurb as there is no clear indication given in the article how he was considered a major figure. Just being a former world leader isn't sufficient, we need to be clear what impact they had on their nation or on international politics if we're going to take that angle, and unless such is made very clear with sources, its hand-waving to make that claim for posting as a blurb. Masem (t) 12:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- The lead of the article clearly indicates that he was a major figure who literally transformed his emirate into the richest country in the world (per capita), founded Al Jazeera and did much more besides. If the lead didn't make this clear then having a separate legacy section wouldn't help as the lead is supposed to summarise the key points of the entire article. The lead is also the part of the article that readers start with and they usually stop there. So, it's the lead that matters most. See WP:LEAD
The typical Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long ... The lead is the first thing most people read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read. ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points ...
- Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- The only line that clearly gives some reason context for why he's significant is the line about raising incomes in the nation, and even then, that doesn't attribute the growth directly to his actions, only that it happened under its rule. All the other points particularly in the third lede paragraph are "Okay, and...?" with respect to context of why that makes him significant. I'm all for making sure the lede summarizes the article, but it should also summarize his legacy, which it does not do, both for the lack of such discussion in the article, and the lack of such specific wording in the lede. In other words, making the claim he was a major figure is currently presented as original research, given the current state of the article. Its fixable assuming the sources, particularly obits, provide this justification. Masem (t) 13:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Masem: Article quality has been addressed and the legacy section and the article body itself does demonstrate how Hamad was a transformative ruler of the country. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- that legacy must have been added in the last 100some edits as I know it wasn't there when I first reviewed. That addresses my primary concern on demonstrating why we are blurbing him
- Sourcing seens fibe but harder for me to confirm right now. Masem (t) 18:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Masem: Article quality has been addressed and the legacy section and the article body itself does demonstrate how Hamad was a transformative ruler of the country. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- The only line that clearly gives some reason context for why he's significant is the line about raising incomes in the nation, and even then, that doesn't attribute the growth directly to his actions, only that it happened under its rule. All the other points particularly in the third lede paragraph are "Okay, and...?" with respect to context of why that makes him significant. I'm all for making sure the lede summarizes the article, but it should also summarize his legacy, which it does not do, both for the lack of such discussion in the article, and the lack of such specific wording in the lede. In other words, making the claim he was a major figure is currently presented as original research, given the current state of the article. Its fixable assuming the sources, particularly obits, provide this justification. Masem (t) 13:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- The lead of the article clearly indicates that he was a major figure who literally transformed his emirate into the richest country in the world (per capita), founded Al Jazeera and did much more besides. If the lead didn't make this clear then having a separate legacy section wouldn't help as the lead is supposed to summarise the key points of the entire article. The lead is also the part of the article that readers start with and they usually stop there. So, it's the lead that matters most. See WP:LEAD
- Not ready for blurb (for now) per Masem. While Hamad could be considered transformative, the article currently does not make this clear. Yes, wealth increased under his rule, but how was this directly connected to his policies? Yes, he founded Al Jazeera, but the article fails to explain Al Jazeera's influence. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Nice4What: Article issue have been fixed and the legacy section/article body itself does demonstrate his influence/impact. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb once article is improved As said above, he can definitely be seen as transformative for the country. However the article is definitely not ready for RD, let alone a blurb. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:44, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu: Article has been improved. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- In light of the quality improvements I am now happy to Support. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu: Article has been improved. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb when ready ArionStar (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb on notability. I think the article makes clear enough how Hamad was a major figure (and also "transformative", although ITNRDBLURB does not actually use that word). He was quite important to the history of Qatar and for international relations in the Arab world. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 15:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Quite a lot of recent work has brought the article quality to Main page standards and the notability is clear. Just post it. Jusdafax (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb - Blurb quality now. As noted above as well.BabbaQ (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment @Admins willing to post ITN: Anyone? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Comment @Admins willing to post ITN: Is there a reason this hasn't been posted yet? Romanov loyalist (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- ITN overall seems to be under-adminned. This sort of this happens relatively often, perhaps monthly or so, where an article is ready for days but can’t get the attention of the admins. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Yes. I think we need to have a serious discussion about this and come up with a solution: new admins, changes... _-_Alsor (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- ITN overall seems to be under-adminned. This sort of this happens relatively often, perhaps monthly or so, where an article is ready for days but can’t get the attention of the admins. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- If you have suggestions, you can make them on the talk page. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Natg 19 My comment isn't meant to go against the idea that Wikipedia is a place for volunteer collaboration (you only have to look at my work to see that), but when there are people who volunteer to take on the responsibilities of an admin on ITN (who do an extraordinary job) and we see that posting has been slowing down for some time now, which in turn slows down updates to the Main Page and some nominations may become stale, don't you think we should at least give it some thought? Especially if it’s the case that there are admins who, for whatever reasons which we must respect, unfortunately can’t be online. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry if my comment to you was harsh or poorly worded. I do wonder what can be done, besides recruiting new admins to the project. If I was an admin here, I would definitely be more wary or cautious towards posting RD blurbs (and even some "regular" blurbs) as these can be contentious or face pushback. (Though consensus for Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani seems unanimous in favor for a blurb.) Natg 19 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- It’s fine ;) _-_Alsor (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry if my comment to you was harsh or poorly worded. I do wonder what can be done, besides recruiting new admins to the project. If I was an admin here, I would definitely be more wary or cautious towards posting RD blurbs (and even some "regular" blurbs) as these can be contentious or face pushback. (Though consensus for Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani seems unanimous in favor for a blurb.) Natg 19 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Natg 19 My comment isn't meant to go against the idea that Wikipedia is a place for volunteer collaboration (you only have to look at my work to see that), but when there are people who volunteer to take on the responsibilities of an admin on ITN (who do an extraordinary job) and we see that posting has been slowing down for some time now, which in turn slows down updates to the Main Page and some nominations may become stale, don't you think we should at least give it some thought? Especially if it’s the case that there are admins who, for whatever reasons which we must respect, unfortunately can’t be online. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I would love to be able to help but currently if I applied for adminship I have no chance of passing. In all likelihood it will be over a year until I will be able to submit myself for admin ship and be able to help out in this regard. I observe that this is also maybe a casualty of our expectations at RfA being far too stringent. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:32, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu, Alsor97, and Natg 19: We could always use more quality admins, here and elsewhere. If any of you have even the tiniest thought about running in the near future, I'd highly recommend posting at WP:ORCP and/or asking the willing prospective nominators. They're both friendly low-stress ways to get independent feedback gauging your chances, and for those with a realistic shot, you'll also get good mentoring, support, and preparation. Left guide (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've seen ORCP before but perhaps I'll have a deeper look into it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW Chorchapu, I think you'd make a great admin. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I do unfortunately think that the folks over at RfA would think otherwise, but I have been working to change that. A big sticking point I presume would be my relatively short tenure of 1¾ years and similarly low editcount. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- FWIW Chorchapu, I think you'd make a great admin. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- thanks, gonna take a look on it. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I looked into this a few years ago and even tried an ORCP but was told that I do not meet the "qualifications" for getting the mop. And nowadays I don't think I even need it. Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've seen ORCP before but perhaps I'll have a deeper look into it. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu, Alsor97, and Natg 19: We could always use more quality admins, here and elsewhere. If any of you have even the tiniest thought about running in the near future, I'd highly recommend posting at WP:ORCP and/or asking the willing prospective nominators. They're both friendly low-stress ways to get independent feedback gauging your chances, and for those with a realistic shot, you'll also get good mentoring, support, and preparation. Left guide (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- If you have suggestions, you can make them on the talk page. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Probably because they aren't English- or American-speaking. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- That’s a bit of a bold claim, to my memory there have also been Anglosphere noms that sat delayed like this too. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- 'American-speaking'? Come on, that's not appropriate. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- @Nfitz: Not sure how you can say this when American senator Lindsey Graham is also waiting for his RD posting from the same day. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- How do I say it? I use the Reply button, and then the Source editor. Perhaps you mean why do I say it? Seriouly though - it did ping 30 hours later than this one. Though obviously there sarcasm here, and a systemic problem. Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I get there's low admin numbers here but I'm seeing new RDs getting promoted. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- ITN is poorly administered. Slow posting. Fast posting before quorum. Consensus ignored… ArionStar (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Article quality is sufficient, and he was easily impactful enough for a blurb. Qatar, the Maldives, and India all held national days of mourning for him, and he had a massive impact on the world during his reign. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Blurb posted I hear what you are all saying and I agree. Most active admins at ITN wouldn't hurt. I'm currently on holiday (in France), hence my reduced activity. The good news is that I'll be at Wikicon next week :-) Schwede66 20:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for posting this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
July 11
[edit source]|
July 11, 2026 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Jayden Adams
[edit source]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.
Nominator's comments: South African soccer player who died weeks after featuring for his country at the World Cup. ArionStar (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support I reffed the international data. Templates say he played at the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations which isn't in text, however he played zero international games in 2023 so there won't exactly be much to write about it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - sufficiet for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Death date His body was found on 11 July, But is it conclusive that is the day he died? Or should "circa" be used?—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- I've set it to show "circa". I've also removed an unreferenced place of birth. Schwede66 20:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Black Kite (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: Peppino di Capri
[edit source]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.
Nominator's comments: Italian musician. ArionStar (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose due to insufficient sourcing. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Aforementioned sourcing deficiency persists. Please add more REFs. Time is running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Patricia Greene
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Goodbyebonnie (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Holl194 (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 actress Goodbyebonnie (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Sufficient for RD. BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
RD: S. Janaki
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
- Nominated by Abishe (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Srinivasrjy (talk · give credit) and ~2026-39308-54 (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: Renowned Indian playback singer. Nightingale of South Indian music industry Abishe (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose, article needs a lot of work—most of the lead needs to be moved into the article, and many extraordinary and unsourced claims in the lead ("She is one of the greatest and most influential singers in the history of Indian music") aren't even mentioned in the article. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Multiple footnote-free paragraphs. Multiple strings of bullet-points with no sourcing. Please add more REFs. Time is running out for this nom. --PFHLai (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Dermot Murnaghan
[edit source]Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:
- Updated and nominated by The C of E (talk · give credit)
- Updated by ItsShandog (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 TV newsreader The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Well, there were quite a few dodgy sources in there, but I've replaced them, so this should be fine now. There seems to be a DYK hook in the Estonian president Toomas Ilves telling him to shut up on live TV, so might take this to GA at some point.--Launchballer 15:35, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Ongoing removal: Flamingo Revolution
[edit source]Nominator's comments: few updates to article in recent days HudecEmil (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose removal. This is not stale. The article is still receiving substantive updates, including full prose additions for events in July rather than only minor maintenance edits; the current July section already covers continuing daily protests through 10 July. The movement also remains a major issue in Albanian political discourse and among the Albanian diaspora, not merely a one-off environmental protest.
- There is also still international coverage. Reuters published a new report on 11 July about SPAK case files concerning allegedly forged land deeds connected to the Kushner-linked resort land sale, which is directly relevant to the protests and to the article's background/legal sections.[16] Reuters also covered the controversy around the government's €4 million Kanye West concert funding on 8 July, another issue that has been raised in the protest context.[17] In addition, The Guardian published an editorial on the "flamingo revolution" on 8 July,[18] Democracy Now! covered it on 9 July,[19] and the Associated Press covered the 35th consecutive night of protests on 5 July.[20]
- Given the continuing daily demonstrations, ongoing article expansion, active legal/political developments, and recent international coverage, I do not think this should be removed from ongoing at this stage. Matete Plays (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - It was updated today, and everyday before this. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per above Vetrenarisisum (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
Oppose removal per Matete Plays – article is still receiving frequent updates.Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)- Neutral – Five days later, this revolution doesn't appear to be receiving as much international coverage. The article is still receiving high quality, frequent updates though. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 02:33, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal Just because there are daily updates and it is an ongoing event does not mean it has to be posted. Furthermore, the visibility of the latest developments suggests that, at the moment, these are simply street protests by citizens, without daily relevant international coverage and without any significant and long-term impact. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal per Alsor97. Nfitz (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per Matete Plays. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:37, 13 July 2026 (UTC)
References
[edit source]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:
- ^ "Pakistan-administered Kashmir returns to daily life after deadly protests". Al Jazeera. 30 June 2026.