Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

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

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

Pope Leo XIV in 2025
Pope Leo XIV

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting items marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, change the header to (Closed). If the article's quality remains poor, leave a brief note explaining why to encourage and assist others in fixing it.
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Structure

[edit]

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

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

May 31

[edit]

May 30

[edit]

2026 UEFA Champions League final

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 UEFA Champions League final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, the UEFA Champions League concludes with Paris Saint-Germain (man of the match Vitinha pictured) defeating Arsenal in the final (Post)
News source(s): NYT UEFA
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: 2025-26 UEFA Champions League Final in Budapest, Hungary. QalasQalas (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality - loads of unsourced information, especially in the background section, also the man of the match was Vitinha, not Dembélé. LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's a high-profile event, so it should be included. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations my team Paris Saint-Germain ~2026-32332-89 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
support one of the most most high profile events in club football along with the Copa Libertadores and Club World Cup, and biggest in Europe without a doubt. Major Event too so should be eligible. F1fan00 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Candidyeoman55, ~2026-32332-89, F1fan00, and LuxembourgFan42: This nomination is listed under WP:ITNR and is therefore automatically considered important enough to post. So, comments should focus on quality exclusively. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready: The "match" section currently has no prose about the match itself, and per WP:ITNUPDATE, stand-alone event articles such as this one are expected to contain a sizable written prose summary of the event itself, and not consist solely of peripheral aspects. There are a few sentences covering additional background and housekeeping details, but none on the match itself. Left guide (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kelly Curtis

[edit]
Article: Kelly Curtis (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Hollywood Reporter Parade
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American actress I Need To Find My Son (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

[edit]

RD: Edgar Morin

[edit]
Article: Edgar Morin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): France 24
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Prominent French philosopher, sociologist, and pioneer of "complex thought" (pensée complexe). World War II Resistance veteran who died on 29 May 2026 at age 104. Article is well-developed, fully sourced, and updated with his death. Hektor (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article is orange-tagged because is not really fully sourced. Needs work. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Glenn explosion

[edit]
Articles: New Glenn (talk · history · tag) and 2026 New Glenn rocket explosion (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A New Glenn rocket explodes during a static fire test at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, destroying the booster and damaging the launch pad. (Post)Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major setback for Blue Origin's New Glenn program during a ground test. And for the Artemis and Moon Base programs. This is the most spectacular rocket explosion since N1 [1]. No injuries reported. Hektor (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Wait until we get the TNT equivalent. If it is in the top 10 largest non-nuclear explosions, I will change my stance to support. MaximumMangoCloset (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
amended nomination slightly further to this. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently on the front page of many major news sites. It would be preferrable if the dedicated article was longer. I'll wait but this could be worth posting.
Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No deaths or injuries, essentially a $200 million firework being set off. Bezos/blue origin aren't struggling for cash so it's not going to be fatal for the broader rocket development plans or have much significance. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Estimates of explosion size range from 1-2 kilotons, this has major coverage and possible long-term effects for the Artemis program. This was New Glenn's only launch pad. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my mind and now oppose. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I changed my mind again and I am wait. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it was 2 kilotons, then adjacent launch facilities would have been damaged, and the USGS would have measured a quake. Nfitz (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If we post this, we'll be opening the floodgates for every failed test or 'rapid unscheduled disassembly'. Rockets explode surprisingly often, especially new commercial ones e.g. Tianlong-3 exploded on its maiden launch just last month, and the multiple failures that SpaceX Starship has suffered. The previous New Glenn launch BlueBird 7 didn't explode but did fail to reach orbit. This was a particularly spectacular explosion, but that's not enough to justify a blurb IMO. Modest Genius talk 13:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have added CN tags to several rows on that table, including the one for this event. A lot of this appears to be hearsay - both that those explosions were as large as claimed, and also that no others were which would rank higher. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support explosion was seen from more than 100 miles away and on the other side of the state. Multiple points of view of the explosion have been uploaded online, and even NASA and Blue Origin are working together to investigate the cause. shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is a global news story shane (talk to me if you want!) 16:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This was a Blue Origin rocket at a NASA launch site - of course those two bodies are working to investigate the cause. Availability of videos is not relevant to the WP:ITNCRIT. Modest Genius talk 17:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Pandas planes VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 17:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose So the main "significance" of this event right now is basically just it being potentially one of the largest artificial explosion. Frankly, given how little damage was done overall aside from financially, there's no reason to post this since it's ultimately a nothingburger in the grand scheme of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotKringe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the (smaller?) N-1 explosion in July 1969 a nothing burger? The effect is similar, delaying if not cancelling a crewed moon program. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability, article is a stub and there's an ongoing discussion about if it's even notable enough to have it's own article. Setarip (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Procedures in place, so even when things blow up, nobody has to get hurt. I see a lot of money burnt and maybe a few weeks delay on the mission this was a test for. The article's in dreadful quality and is missing key details, such as which mission the launch was a test for and any actual repercussions beyond billionaires saying "gosh darn!" Also, someone on the merge nom page said this was one of the biggest non-nuclear manmade explosions in history, but I can't easily find anything on that.
Go watch the footage linked in the refs, it was a spectacular and flashy failure the likes of which I've never seen. As it stands, though, this shouldn't be posted, both on quality and a lack of apparent notability. Departure– (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks @Departure–? Whats the reference for that; what I've seen estimates closer to a year. Including for multiple lunar lander missions, and possibly Artemis III. Nfitz (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I heard weeks somewhere. The article doesn't confirm any delay, and it isn't out of the question there won't be a delay, and until such an announcement comes, estimates are unofficial and too speculative to be worth considering in a feature. Departure– (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the article is short and there is a merge discussion ongoing. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is not currently strong enough for a feature, but I think much of the discussion is understating the significance of the event by viewing it primarily as a large explosion during a ground test.
Reporting suggests New Glenn could be grounded for 12–24 months, while the NASA Administrator has specifically raised concerns about impacts to Artemis missions and broader moon base plans, and stated that NASA will intervene to lend assistance. Blue Moon landers will require alternative launch vehicles to avoid major delays and fulfill government-contracted obligations, and broader regulatory scrutiny across the industry is possible. Feedmevinyls (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like more space blurbs, oppose mostly due to article quality concerns WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it seems obvious to close this per WP:SNOW due to the sheer number of oppose !votes, I believe this nomination should remain open for the possibility of a delay announcement, a concrete figure on the size of the rocket's explosion size, and the article's quality improving--all three of these, in my opinion, would sway both myself and others in favor of posting this, though they haven't materialized. I personally think the quality is passable at this time. Departure– (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

[edit]

(Closed) Terrorist designation of Primeiro Comando da Capital and Comando Vermelho by the United States

[edit]
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Consensus to post unlikely to develop. The Kip (contribs) 15:57, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Articles: Primeiro Comando da Capital (talk · history · tag) and Comando Vermelho (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States designates Primeiro Comando da Capital (leader Marcola pictured) and Comando Vermelho, the two biggest Brazilian drug gangs, as terrorist groups. (Post)
News source(s): The Washington Post
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Probably the first Brazilian criminal organizations designed as such by the US. ArionStar (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability Setarip (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Alec Penstone

[edit]
Article: Alec Penstone (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: British World War II veteran. Article is long enough and fully sourced. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article quality is adequate, the sections have sources throughout. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) SK Hynix employee bonuses

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: SK Hynix (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Thirty five thousand SK Hynix employees will receive half a million dollars of bonuses amassed by Samsung Electronics with the AI boom. (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:
 Varoon2542 21:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose "Company paid bonus to employees" shouldn't be a major news, let alone ITN/R. The "notability" of this lies heavily on the "AI boom" and it's not out of ordinary for companies to paid bonus when their business is growing. NotKringe (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree with you, this has made world news for some reason, perhaps because of the AI connection. [3][4][5][6] Natg 19 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what are we doing?? Scuba 22:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close, please. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: Claude Lemieux

[edit]
Article: Claude Lemieux (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian former ice hockey player Elisecars727 (talk)☺ 17:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality. Long stretches of the article are unsourced and need work LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@LuxembourgFan42: Just for your information, this is an RD nomination everyone with a Wikipedia article is automatically considered notable enough to post, therefore notability is not a factor in these nominations. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi

[edit]
Article: Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): AP, NYT
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former president of Yemen from 2012 to 2022 Mr. Lechkar (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are no citation issues and the article appears to be sufficiently sourced in all sections. The article is also Level-5 vital and C-class. Albeit the death section could be elaborated upon pending further sources. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT some lines are unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support An important person who is arguably one of the main reasons the current war in Yemen started 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen: As this is an RD nomination everyone with a Wikipedia article is automatically considered notable enough to post. So, comments should focus on quality exclusively. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

[edit]

RD: Marcia Lucas

[edit]
Article: Marcia Lucas (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): San Francisco Chronicle
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Film editor and ex-wife of George Lucas, worked on Star Wars, Taxi Driver, American Graffiti, etc. PolarManne (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Maureen Duffy

[edit]
Article: Maureen Duffy (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English poet, playwright, gay rights activist. Jaguarnik (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Marc Johnson

[edit]
Article: Marc Johnson (skateboarder) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Skateboarder, death announced day after. Article looks weirdly incomplete and does not mention much skateboarding peculiarly, only commercial endeavours. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ilie Ciocan

[edit]
Article: Ilie Ciocan (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Oldest person ever in Romania. Lived to 112. Military veteran and supercentenarian. Karteno (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article appears to be sourced enough. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready yet. One cn tag. – robertsky (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 26

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Mohammed Odeh

[edit]
Article: Mohammed Odeh (Palestinian militant) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Notable member of Hamas, most recently leader of Al-Qassam Brigades. KIA from airstrike. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 09:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article quality is fine. The sections are all sourced. CastleFort1 (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Victor Udoh

[edit]
Article: Victor Udoh (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sport
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Nigerian professional footballer whose death was announced on this date. Article appears well-sourced. Tragically only 21 with short playing career. Fats40boy11 (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support don't see any immediate problems. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 05:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support unfortunately as comprehensive as we can get for a 21 year old who wasn't a first team player for his last two clubs. I saw a user remove the death cause speculation, and I'd like to keep it that way, because the claim is weak and there is the potential to upset the family. Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Dragoljub Mićunović

[edit]
Article: Dragoljub Mićunović (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Danas
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: First president of the Democratic Party, member of the National Assembly of Serbia Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support No appearing issues in the article, all sections appear to be sourced. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Magnifica Humanitas

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Magnifica Humanitas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Pope Leo XIV (pictured) issues his first encyclical: Magnifica Humanitas. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Pope Leo XIV (pictured) issues his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, which expresses concerns about artificial intelligence.
Alternative blurb 2: ​ Pope Leo XIV (pictured) issues his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, on "preserving the human person in the age of artificial intelligence". Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: There are various talking points in this including AI, Rerum Novarum, the Tower of Babel and autonomous weapons. Some sources even highlight him quoting Gandalf. I've just added that detail and the article seems to be developing well overall. Note that ITN has previously blurbed encyclicals including Laudato Si' and Deus Caritas Est. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I very much doubt that a pope's address will give enough sway to burst the AI bubble. NotKringe (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Equivalent to the State of the Union address. It’s a routine element to the job, just the first time since named. Masem (t) 11:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not routine in that sense as it doesn't happen annually. It's unscheduled and more notable as it's his first one. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is seemingly receiving much coverage because of its focus on a contemporary subject, AI. Article is of a sufficient quality. I would disregard earlier !votes stating this isn't Catholic News because, as far as I'm aware, there is no ban against Catholic stories in the ITN criteria. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a statement about the notability criteria for ITN, there's no implication of a ban. Feeglgeef (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Catholic news arent always in ITN criterii. ~2026-31603-28 (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • criteria
~2026-31603-28 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but 'X doesn't always meet the criteria' is not the same as 'this instance of X should be excluded by the criteria'. Do you have an actual substantive argument for or against this posting? GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The pope pontificating is not intrinsically notable. The article doesn't indicate anything particularly important here - it's a bunch of discussion points, a call for being cautious about AI, and some well-meaning words about slavery. The media coverage doesn't suggest there will be any particular impact either; the BBC piece specifically ends with a section stating this is unlikely to have much effect. I can't work out why ITN posted the 2015 encyclical either. Modest Genius talk 18:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Changes in Bahamian or Fijian governments or the winners of snooker matches are far less likely to impact global trends than an encyclical from the pope, if only due to a substantial difference in mass (pun intended). I am a bit surprised by the reflexive opposition from many here that seems more premised on a desire to avoid discussing a news item due to its relationship to a particular organization rather than something pertinent to policy. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, I agree that elections in small countries are also not very impactful in global terms. If it was up to me, I would set a minimum population requirement for national elections; however consensus was against that idea and they're on ITNR. Papal speeches are not. As for 'relationship to a particular organization', I'm puzzled why anyone thinks this is important just because a religious leader said it, rather than the actual contents or impact of the speech. Modest Genius talk 13:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Papal speeches not bring in ITNR is irrelevant, that's what we're here to discuss and people are free to disagree with them - they aren't static.
    'relationship to a particular organization'
    Presumably they were referring to the multiple opposes noting this is Catholic news. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - This has certainly been making the news, and is a major policy statement by an extremely influential head of state and religion. An encyclical is not a routine statement like the Throne Speech or the State of the Union; they happen much less often than annually, and each one is written to address a specific range of subject matter. My only reservation is that an encyclical is, in my opinion, a policy statement, and therefore less notable than something which demands action or changes laws. But this is unquestionably making the news in a highly significant way and is already (no CRYSTAL needed) forming an important part of the wider cultural debate about AI. This is actually a really good example of a specific event with good prominence and significance of its own also illustrating a wider, slower-moving story that we might otherwise struggle to post to ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC) ETA: I have a strong preference for alt 2. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. NYT writes[7]:"Pope Leo XIV’s major new teaching on safeguarding humanity in the age of artificial intelligence is a forward-looking document, arriving at the precipice of what many see as a new technological age that will profoundly reshape human life." This, to me, already appears to justify that this encyclical is a significant event, worthy of ITN. Nsk92 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Article is of sufficient quality for ITN, and is notable and "in the news". --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:35, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on notability and quality Nothing about this encyclical is binding on the Catholic Church as canon law. It's simply a letter the Pope is putting out in a personal capacity, as Popes have for many hundreds of years. It being Leo's first encyclical does not automatically make it an ITN-worthy event, and the article itself is very brief and not particularly detailed; most of the prose concerns background and reactions whereas the section on the contents of the encyclical is barely two paragraphs long and goes into little detail about why it is important at all. Aside from the fact that it has a papal letterhead, this is essentially a press statement, and carries no particular importance as to the Church's use of AI (or that of Catholics worldwide). I can't remember seeing any encyclicals making ITN before and I don't see why this should either in its current state. Oppius Brutus 07:30, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Either ways Pope Leo XIV issuing his first encyclical is not notable for ITN blurb itself, but in combination with its content based on AI could be. So any alt blurb with that mention would be preferable if posted. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 08:31, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@ExclusiveEditor: Struggled a bit, and maybe some other more experienced editor might have a better way of wording it, but I've added two alt blurbs that mention AI because I agree that it's the mention of AI that makes this extremely notable/blurbable. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted alt1. Understanding there will be questions on the posting of this nom, here's my rationale as I weigh the comments here against WP:ITNCRIT:
  1. comments stating because it is "Catholic news" and variation are largely downweighted because it is generally centric on particular group of people which is an argument to avoid. (WP:ITNATA)
  2. question of notability is the remit of AfD, not here. on the quality of the article, it has expanded to a sufficient length which would qualify for any other blurbs.
  3. question on significance is addressed by the alt blurbs.
  4. on comparison with SOTUA, throne speech etc, it is also argued that popes had not been doing so regularly. My understanding of those supporting is that this is likely an irregular one as well.
Premptively, article title discussion has not been a cause for holding up the posting of ITN items. – robertsky (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
point 2 is incorrect for freshly created articles. We have to judge if NEVENT applies, and that might also mean a simultaneous AFD, because a newly created article is not going to have the test of time where only AFD makes the most sense to question notability. Masem (t) 15:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Pull A blurb wouldn't have to be rationalized away from the discussion if there was even a formative consensus. This should've been allowed to run its course. Gotitbro (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and pull. There is not remotely a consensus to post here, there are more opposes than supports, and I don't find the arguments made by the poster convincing. Ultimately, discussions about what's significant in ITN terms can never be fully objective, it comes down to the assessment of those who participate. In this case, there was a majority who opposed, and their rationales are not obviously invalid. As an admin I would never have considered posting this. As for why I oppose this, per the comment by Oppius Brutus above, this is not a story that will have lasting importance, and when compared with the stories we do and don't generally post, it doesn't meet the bar IMHO. Please pull this ASAP. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "their rationales are not obviously invalid"
    Opposition based on it being routine like the State of the union address is fundamentally invalid as they are untrue. Opposition based on it being Catholic news is covered in WP:ITNATA as the poster pointed out.
    "this is not a story that will have lasting importance"
    That's not a requirement for posting. Little of what we post is of lasting importance. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. One compelling comment in support is stronger than hundred non-compelling comments against, and this is exactly what Robert explained in his posting rationale. Most of the admins here use the vote count as a starting point when evaluating consensus. I'm glad that we finally have an example of an ITNC that was posted despite receiving more oppose than support votes. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    NOT DEMOCRACY makes sense where there are objective reasons for and against taking a course of action. That has never been the case at ITN, and it's impossible for it to be so because the relative significance of different stories is not something you can quantify against objective criteria. Ultimately the poster has decided some opinions are more valid than others based purely on subjective reasons, which makes it a classic WP:SUPERVOTE. Even as someone who supported posting this story you should recognise that there was not a consensus to do so in this thread. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think WP:ITNATA is subjective, sure, get it struck out. – robertsky (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru seems to endorse the !vote of Oppius Brutus but that was especially erroneous. For example:
    1. Oppius Brutus wrote "I can't remember seeing any encyclicals making ITN before..." but the nomination cites two examples.
    2. Oppius Brutus wrote "It's simply a letter the Pope is putting out in a personal capacity..." This is false as it's ex officio and so will carry weight throughout the Catholic church as authoritative. See encyclical and Humani generis.
    3. Oppius Brutus wrote "...and carries no particular importance as to the Church's use of AI". This ignores the fact that the Pope has, at the same time, established an "Interdicasterial Commission on Artificial Intelligence" which tasks seven departments of the Vatican to address the issue "including policies on its use within the Holy See". The article explains this because I added that aspect myself.
    So, it seems apparent that Oppius Brutus hasn't read or understood the article, the nomination or the sources. Their !vote is correspondingly weak.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 15:48, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew, your claim that 'it seems apparent that Oppius Brutus hasn't read or understood the article, the nomination or the sources. Their !vote is correspondingly weak' is a deeply ignorant and condescending comment, and I would ask you kindly to remove it. For what it's worth, I have indeed read the article (which I pointed out was very brief and little more than a stub concerning the encyclical's contents), the nomination, and the sources, including the encyclical itself. The two examples of encyclicals you cite making ITN before are from 2015 and 2005, and there have been two since 2015 that did not make ITN (Fratelli tutti and Dilexit nos) and countless others before, illustrating my point that it has been a very long time since one was included here, and certainly not in recent memory. This is why I specifically did not say none had ever made ITN, only that I did not remember any. Secondly, your claim that 'it's ex officio and so will carry weight throughout the Catholic church as authoritative' belies the fact that it is not canon law and does not represent the Pope acting ex cathedra, which actually would be an exercise of papal infallibility and thus binding in itself. Finally, your claim that the Pope has set up a commission to address the issue 'including policies on its use' at the same time as the encyclical does not actually convey any importance whatsoever in the encyclical itself which you nominated, and wrongly assumes the outcome of such a commission as actually changing the policies themselves. Oppius Brutus (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am willing to accept that Oppius Brutus read the relevant texts but I still disagree with their dismissive conclusions. As for the article, it's a work-in-progress which continues to expand and so requires regular review to assess. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support There is no denying that this is a major news story, and it's the type of thing I wish we would post more of. Not every encyclical should be posted, but this one should. The opposers' arguments do not convince me otherwise. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to challenge the posting but the problem with this is that it does not appear to set any type of policy or action. Its like why we rarely post G20 or similar events if there's no significant action that results from them. What if Bezos gave a TED talk that expressed the same, should we post that? This is why ITN as it right now is around actual event with resulting changes to the world in some way, and not hypotheticals. Masem (t) 16:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Bezos is not the pope? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If Bezos started issuing encyclicals, now that would be notable. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 04:44, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ChatGPT and Pope Leo XIV ranks among the most viewed Wikipedia pages. This shows the importance. Grimes2 15:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Page views are not part of how we determine significance. Masem (t) 16:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support This is a widely reported event which is being reported on in-depth, "IN THE NEWS". If the reliable sources disagree that it is routine, then that should be our posting metric. And here, it is clearly spurring a reaction in the reliable sources which is non-routine: for example, professors of theology describe it as "landmark" and it has already spurred at least nine significant, in-depth commentary pieces in the New York Times. "I don't care what the reliable sources are saying, Catholic News isn't news; this is just the Pope pontificating" is not really a valid !vote rationale. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and pull - I'm surprised this was posted because the article doesn't indicate the encyclical's impact or significance, even within just the Catholic Church. All we have is a generic Reception section with people praising or criticizing it. FallingGravity 19:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and pull This has already been posted, but I have to echo Amakuru's comments above. This is just the observations and views of a clergyman which are being privileged because of his position. It's a minor news story, and there is no reason to think that this statement will prove to be significant in any way. Many of the counter-arguments in favour of this posting could be used to justify posting just about anything. Effy Midwinter (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The blurb was posted hastily, in my view. ArionStar (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support major news story, and official statements from the Pope are not commonplace. Though we do not need to post every encyclical, this has garnered widespread attention. Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support Papal encyclicals are, in fact, very important documents which historians, theologians, and activists continue to refer to for decades to come. Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (1968) set out the Church's stance on birth control, and has been cited frequently over the past 60 years; Rerum novarum (1891) is the foundational text for Catholic social teaching and had a large impact on social movements of the 20th century. This doesn't mean that every papal encyclical is ITN-worthy, but Magnifica Humanitas is. Nobody knows how AI will evolve over the next few decades, but there is a good chance that MH will become the core text laying out the Church's stance on this new technology for the next few decades. At the very least, MH will stand out as primary source historians will use to understand how people responded to AI in this particular era. Of all the entries on ITN at the moment, MH is the one most likely to have a longterm impact.theBOBbobato (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support – Widespread international attention and the most of any encyclical since Laudato Si'. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:09, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting support. Widely reported in international news and clearly notable. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-posting weak support I like it because it is unlike most things that get posted. Also, I see no danger of every encyclical getting posted just because this one did. Abductive (reasoning) 08:17, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Honoré Traoré

[edit]
Article: Honoré Traoré (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [8]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Interim head of state of Burkina Faso for one day in 2014. Chomik! (talk?) 20:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support No issue appears in the article, the sections are sufficiently sourced. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New Prime Minister of Senegal

[edit]
Article: Ahmadou Al Aminou Lo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ahmadou Al Aminou Lo is appointed prime minister of Senegal. (Post)
News source(s): f24
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Separate from the ouster below as it happened today (yesterday), but maybe combine the blurbs. Psephguru (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"heads of state and government"Psephguru (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Senegal uses a semi-presidential system; the prime minister is head of government and the president is head of state. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 05:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed ITNR tag. The relevant ITNR criteria states, "Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government." By that list, the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government for Senegal is the president of Senegal, not the PM.
Anyways, oppose on both quality and notability - notability per above, and quality as Lo's article is far too short and the PM article is mostly just a list. The Kip (contribs) 17:01, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
pm is the head of government,as you cited.

(Posted blurb): Sonny Rollins

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Sonny Rollins (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American saxophonist Sonny Rollins (pictured) dies at the age of 95 (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Extremely Famous Musician EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Grove chemical leak

[edit]
Proposed image
GKN Aerospace facility
Article: Garden Grove chemical leak (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In California, over 50 thousand people are evacuated and a emergency declaration implemented after a chemical leak occurs at an Orange County manufacturing facility. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, LAT, NYT, CBC, France24
Credits:

Nominator's comments: 40k in Orange County have been evacuated after a chemical leak at a GKN plant. A state of emergency has been declared as there is a possibility of a major explosion. Receiving sustained coverage from multiple articles. Likely to be searched for by readers/intrigue those browsing the MP. Article is of pretty good quality. Meets WP:ITNPURPOSE. — Knightoftheswords 22:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mixed feelings about this (though I know people who are affected) as 40k is a lot of affected people, but this can also be considered regional/local news. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have little experience with nominations here, but this was on the front page of the BBC News website (not the headline story, but still visible on load) here in the UK at one point. Also, NYT ran stories on it – I don't have the links to hand – so I'm not sure that this is just local news. Pink Bee (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - No explosion or spill (or casualties) have resulted from the leak yet, and also authorities have ruled out the possibility of a catastrophic BLEVE happening. I don't feel the evacs alone (even though around 50k were affected) would be blurbable, though feel free to prove me wrong if we blurbed an incident where evacuation is the main story. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 06:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's also some sourcing issues in the Responses section that need addressing. Tinh1000000 (rawr!) 06:37, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per tinh1000000 Another reason why I insist that people must first give serious thought to what they are nominating before the editors here tells that something like that is clearly not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Evacuations aren't inherently notable (I even doubt if the article would pass an Afd), especially here with nothing of significance for casualties/injuries, disaster etc. Gotitbro (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My first thought was about whether it passes WP:NOTNEWS too, though it affecting tens of thousands of people and going up the entire chain of government, I think it likely does. Regardless, until the article actually gets nominated for AfD, it doesn't really feel like a reason to oppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason to oppose this is not that it is merely news but that it is news which does not satisfy WP:ITNSIGNIFICANCE. Gotitbro (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    exactly, we need to be wary if falling into the trap of "lots of sources, therefore must be notable". We want significant coverage over time from secondary sources, and what we have here is a burst of coverage from primary ones. There's no indication how a year later this will have any significance. Masem (t) 13:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I believe started when every minor event started having an enwiki article in recent years, entailing with the abandonment of Wikinews and a move to Wikipedia of that stuff. This has naturally led to lasting being entirely disregarded.
    But we'll still have to be stringent as far as ITN is considered. Gotitbro (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given its been cancelled, and no fatalities or the like, thankfully, this is not really that significant with the lack of anything happening. Masem (t) 11:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Article looks good, and it's certainly not a routine incident. I hope the sourcing issues in Response can be cleaned up first. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    An article looking good would be fine for RD. For a blurb, supporters need to show significance, not a single rationale for that has been forthcoming. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gotitbro: The proposal links to articles from the BBC and France24, besides the major national newspapers. Quickly checking myself, reporting is looking extensive. It seems to easily meet the bar given at ITNSIGNIF, I didn't even really consider that a concern here when I saw how extensive our article on the leak was. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Off the desk breaking news, the recentism and internet sources, don't show significance. This wouldn't even make it above the fold beyond local newspapers (and likely not even below the fold nationally or globally). Gotitbro (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gotitbro: I really don't think we should worry about whether a news story is front-page news. It meets the minimum requirements from ITNSIGNIF with ease (articles are fairly detailed, each of the major newspaper are writing unique articles on it, some major newspapers are doing multiple articles), and the actual quality of the article is what we're featuring. Even if this wasn't covered by international sources, I think our article's quality and depth would easily balance that out. That is what this is all about in the end. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really... the only reason a minor chemical leak without any casualties is even being considered to be plastered on the front page of a global encyclopedia is because this happened in the US, California to be specific. A rationale that is a quality article or sources cover it is no rationale for signicance, none has come for why this is even significant news for California (let alone the US which should in any case be the basis of any consideration). I distinctly recall people opposing the >100 dead Chinese mine disaster just this week and I needn't list the reason why.
    Ideally, as an encyclopedia, this would be a tucked away section in the Garden Grove article but since enwiki has been co-opted as Wikinews (now that the project's shutdown for good even moreso), here we are. Gotitbro (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gotitbro: I think it would be helpful if we had a clear method/plan/guideline for how to tackle systemic bias on ITN, because I agree it is a concern. I personally don't think "punishing" editors who write about America-centric subjects is an effective way of combating the issue, however. I would suggest being more lenient with articles on non-English-language subjects instead; lift articles up rather than pushing them down, especially because the section already has a dearth of new content. If your concern is that the article goes against WP:NOTNEWS, I recommend nominating it for merger (discussion). I've done this with ITN proposals before, and I think that is the ideal place to handle that issue. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My assertion is that this is news without significance for ITN. And I keep in my mind basic ITN criteria and precdent to opine on a blurb, I don't see those being fulfilled here.
    I wouldn't loosen up those bolts for just so that insignificant but well-written items get a pass (bias). Gotitbro (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Featuring well-written articles is what the front page is for. Every other section is purely about quality. The "Significance" criterium is a minimum limit for what is appropriate for the ITN section, but it certainly isn't a tool to diminish bias. If anything, the precedent of this argument's use runs the risk of greatly increasing structural bias, as Wikipedians are frequently opposing articles on subject purely because they are unfamiliar with the foreign subject. But I suppose we should try to wind this argument down, as we won't be convincing eachother here. I hope someone will be able to change the ITN guidelines so make the intentions of 'Significance' clearer, in the future. See ongoing discussions in WT:ITN where I've been struggling with this disconnect as well. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Thankfully no deaths and its just a chemical leak ~2026-31603-28 (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We're on the other side of the event where we now know that the worst-case scenario, an explosion of the tank, has been ruled out, and the risk of a chemical leak has been addressed pre-emptively and hasn't manifested yet, five days on. It seems like the evacuation of 40,000 people is the biggest event at this point, with the leak itself being not immediately impactful. This doesn't forgo that it'll be important down the line, in, say, a legal sense, but that's CRYSTAL and such a slow burn that it wouldn't merit a blurb today.
40,000 evacuated, then, seems to be a relatively small amount, and so many have already returned home. This area of California has one of the country's greatest population densities in the country, propping up that figure, while California is also notoriously one of the richest parts of the developed world, so I suppose this news story is hard not to see with US-centric bias in mind. If anything, the biggest story I see is the test on EMS infrastructure in this part of the country, the scale of response they can handle. With that being said, I can't say it's an event of worldwide importance, falling below the threshold of big enough local stories to gain my support. Departure– (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a chemical leak of this magnitude is rare and unusual and we have posted environmental disasters before (e.g. 2022 Oder environmental disaster). Unconvinced that there needs to many deaths or injuries for a story to be notable or considered ITN-worthy (WP:MINIMUMDEATHS), we are not a tragedy counter either. Evacuating 40 000 people is substantial impact, state of emergencies are not implemented lightly, and the fact that the evacuation was successful and there were no mortalities is a positive that should not penalise the importance of the story. A similar argument was made before about a German coup d'état attempt; just because it was foiled before it was attempted that does not mean it's any less notable than if a successful coup happened in the coup belt, as Germany is much democratically resilient, has better law enforcement agencies etc. and therefore the chances of a successful coup are much lower and uncovering of an attempt much higher. Same applies here, just because California has successful procedures in place and there were no casualties, does not mean the stroy is not notable. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between this and the Oder river article you brought up is that the environmental impact of this event is as of yet not clearly visible. In my opinion, if that environmental side ends up being the story, then the worst has yet to come, as the tank full of MMA hasn't burst yet--and it seems the mere threat of it doing so is the biggest story so far, just like, for instance, seismologists anticipating a major volcanic eruption. Departure– (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be if the argument for significance was about Californian disaster preparedness. It isn't. The entirety of which, including the evac, stemming from a what if scenario which never materialized. Gotitbro (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've corrected the blurb to read that over 50 thousand people were evacuated, which is the article and the BBC and LAT stories state. No comment otherwise. DigitalIceAge (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would have supported this if it actually exploded, but the worst case scenario has been averted and the only impact will be the evacuations. Therefore I do not find it to rise to enough significance. in solidarity, Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted: ongoing) 2026 Central Africa Ebola epidemic

[edit]
Article: 2026 Central Africa Ebola epidemic (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is of sufficient quality and notability for ITN, and is receiving daily updates. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The article is hitting on some proseline issues, but it's seeing much more regular editing than other Ongoing entries so it looks good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Neutral, may have called it a bit too early, the proseline issues are only getting worse. I hope the frontpage feature might drive more editing quality to it, I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm scared. Grimes2 09:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The province name in the article title makes it unsuitable for Ongoing as the title is too long and parochial. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an actual policy against this? Wouldn't it be better to suggest a shortened wikilink rather than !voting against a story that could qualify for Ongoing? Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Given we're got a full ongoing line, and compared to what else is in the ongoing line, this is not at a scale that needs to be listed. While there are semi-daily updates being made to this article, its not really drawning the attention of news compared to Iran or Ukraine. Masem (t) 11:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The province this is happening in having a long name, nor comparisons to other conflicts, are policy-based reasons for opposing. This is an article on Wikipedia which meets our baseline quality standards, and which has semi-daily updates. The article meets WP:ONGOING. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:55, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Appears to hit the mark for everything listed in WP:ITNONGOING: the epidemic is frequently in the news and the article is still getting regular updates. If a shortened name is truly needed as Andrew insists, we could always go with Ituri Ebola epidemic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 17:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I've closed the RM on Talk:2026 Central Africa Ebola epidemic in favor of moving to a new title, I've adjusted the title of the article (as redirects are ineligible for the main page). Feeglgeef (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ready? ArionStar (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to ongoing. – robertsky (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Cooper's Hill Cheese-Rolling and Wake

[edit]
Consensus to post will not develop (per WP:SNOW). Please assume good faith for items that may seem unusual for nomination. If there really is a bonafide concern regarding what ITN does and does not post, take it to Wikipedia talk:In the news. (non-admin closure) Departure– (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Cooper's Hill Cheese-Rolling and Wake (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ German Tom Kopke wins the Cooper's Hill Cheese-Rolling and Wake for the third time in a row. (Post)Credits:

Article needs updating
Nominator's comments: World famous event and main article in very good shape. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The results were updated, bit prose could use expansion with recent updates. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please expand as to the rationale? Abcmaxx (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
whilst it's significance is subject to interpretation and can be debated in the range from "none" to "newsworthy", this event has had consistent worldwide attention for at least the last two decades therefore calling it a strictly local or regional affair is factually incorrect, even if the event itself is a local oddity. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything that receives global media coverage is notable, and not everything that is notable receives global media coverage. This is a popular custom because of its uniqueness, just as there are so many customs and traditions in countries around the world. If your intention is to start brainstorming potential ITNRs, I don’t think you’re going about it in the best possible way. _-_Alsor (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We have had nominations rejected for not large enough attendance and RD blurbs nominated for very US-centric figures despite their locality. I am nominating things that are "in the news", and it's difficult to predict what is and isn't going to gain consensus, and precedent does seem uneven at times. There's no ulterior motive here, I found this article to be quite good so I nominated it. If consensus is not to post, so be it. If the article improves regardless in any way due to the attention it receives then my nomination is not wasted either way. I'm not sure what ITN/R has to do with it, that would only happen if we post this a few times in row and with consensus that it should be added. Be foolish to assume this would happen after 1 nomination. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To which non-ITNR posting that we made are you referring to @Andrew Davidson? Nfitz (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose chasing a wheel of cheese down a hill is not "notable" nor meets our significance criteria. Football is far more notable/significant than this novelty event. Natg 19 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Cypriot legislative election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Cypriot legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Democratic Rally, led by Annita Demetriou (pictured), wins a plurality of seats in the Cypriot legislative election. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, The Guardian
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: No outright winner, expected long process of coalition building. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK if we wait until we have a winner? Feeglgeef (talk) 04:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a "winner", but as with many other countries, forming a government and coalition talks can take months. Here, it is not evident who the coalition partners may be. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx Cyprus doesn’t work like that. It has a presidential system of government, under which the president was elected three years ago and formed a government. Parliament’s role is to oversee the government and make laws, not to elect or form it. There are no government coalitions or negotiations beyond the election of the President of the HoR. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
then what are we exactly waiting for then if there will be no coalition building? Abcmaxx (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're not waiting for anything. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, then. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support ITNR and the article looks updated and good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – ITN/R, article is sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 19:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Actual election result, ready to post. Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost ready. The lead is only two sentences, it doesn't even say who won. The rest of the article meets our minimum requirements. Once a proper lead has been written, I'll support. Modest Genius talk 13:19, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: done as requested. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That only summarises the results section, nothing on the campaign. But OK, it's not terrible, so I won't object any further. Modest Genius talk 18:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: point taken nonetheless, I tweaked the lead a bit further to your suggestion and added and analysis section as well. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Abcmaxx: Thanks, I'm grateful for the constructive response and article improvements. Modest Genius talk 10:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins willing to post ITN: there looks to be a consensus to post. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Enhanced Games

[edit]
SNOW close, consensus is against posting and is unlikely to develop. (non-admin closure) Setarip (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Enhanced Games (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Enhanced Games conclude with the Greek swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev breaking the official 50 meter freestyle record by 0.07 seconds. (Post)
News source(s): ABC Australia - France24 - ESPN - WaPo - Reuters
Credits:
Nominator's comments: There was some support for nominating this here if it ever occured at this WT:ITN discussion two years ago. It definitely has had surprisingly sustained coverage for close to three years now and will likely interest our readers. Would like to see what y'all think. — Knightoftheswords 06:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to nominate this, you beat me to it by seven minutes. I still think the article needs work. I added something mentioning the beating of the record, but that it was by 0.07 seconds is not yet mentioned in the article. Feeglgeef (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And, actually, I've changed my mind, oppose on notability too. Feeglgeef (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Admittedly I only learned that they actually held the first game from stumbling upon this blurb, and the coverage I've seen are just minor "here's what happened to it in case you're interested". Even the page for the Enhanced Games itself only offers barebone prose on the event itself, so it's clear that the event ends up amounted to nothing and is not inherently noteable. NotKringe (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on notability. Can you assess the prominence of a sporting competition beforehand? ITNR exists for this reason, and there’s no need to nominate each one individually in the hope that it might pass the criteria for prominence and quality. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ITNR doesn't account for new sporting events. If we just take ITNR as the be all and end all for sporting events, ITN will become stale. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I oppose this specific nomination, I also strongly endorse this point. ITNR is not a static list; it is designed to change, both as some things drop out for not being as prominent (or sufficiently consistently updated), and as others appear or become prominent. And by the design of the procedure itself, events are supposed to appear here before they can be accepted at ITNR. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might have been blurb-worthy if world records were "broken" left right and centre, but it was a damp squib in the end. The 100m sprint was of shocking quality. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and SNOW close per above Setarip (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) RD: Neale Daniher

[edit]
Article: Neale Daniher (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABC
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Former Australian Rules footballer, Australian of the Year and motor neurone disease campaigner HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support good comprehensive article however, unsure why the illness and death section is tagged, it looks like all the key information is there? There's also one minor cn tag at the end if the early life section that would be great if it could get resolved. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed both that tag, and the non-cited content. Should be good to go now. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vacant0 Where? HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Essendon's 2000 season is considered to be one of the most dominant in VFL/AFL history, losing only one match for the entire season." Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a silly claim. I have removed it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Toshifumi Suzuki

[edit]
Article: Toshifumi Suzuki (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): ABS-CBN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Japanese businessman credited with the success of 7/11 in Japan, article's barely been touched since 2008 and isn't much more than a stub Departure– (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

[edit]

(Posted) 2026 Indianapolis 500

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Indianapolis 500 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In auto racing, Felix Rosenqvist (pictured) wins the 2026 Indianapolis 500. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Felix Rosenqvist wins the 2026 Indianapolis 500.
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Race recap needs better inline citations, otherwise ITN/R should be good to go. Well done Felix!! Ecourter (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support. still need some race stats but otherwise good. id also do the coke 600 but i tried and it was closed.
Brycenrichter (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Large notability difference between the World 600 and Indy, as unfortunate as it may be. Electricmemory (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support first blurb ITNR item, continually being improved at the moment, looks good to go. Electricmemory (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Henderson Barbara (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a rationale for that !vote? GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. Left guide (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2026 Quetta bombing

[edit]
Article: 2026 Quetta train bombing (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A suicide bombing near a train perpetrated by the Balochistan Liberation Army in Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan, kills at least 30 people and injures more than 100 others. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A suicide bombing targeting a shuttle train in Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan, kills at least 30 people and injures more than 100 others. Credits:

 ArionStar (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb. Although the article is a bit short, the attack resulted in a significant number of casualties. I will also continue to work on it throughout the day. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT blurb – Article is current, sufficiently updated, and supported by multiple reliable sources. I support posting with the lower casualty figure used by major sources for now: A suicide bombing targeting a shuttle train in Quetta, Balochistan, Pakistan, kills at least 24 people and injures around 70 others. Umais🗣 19:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Umais's ALT blurb - It is an important and tragic event, worthy for "In the news". As @Umais Bin Sajjad suggested, most official sources are reporting 24 killed, so we should either wait until the numbers become clearer or we post it using the lower casualty figure. MrCryptoNerd (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: cause notable casualties, although insurgent is ongoing.
QalasQalas (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and removed (Ready), you have a redirect in both proposals, so it's not eligible for the main page in any case. Articles look good and is notable enough. Feeglgeef (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose main blurb, sources do not support that the BLA is the perpetrator, only that they claimed responsibility, Reuters explicitly stating they were unable to verify it. Feeglgeef (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative blurb. I think it works better since it describes the event and its details earlier in the sentence and in a simple readable way, helping readers immediately associate what happened. Henderson Barbara (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major terrorist attack Setarip (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1356997114#Please_do_not..."