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.
Sabastian Sawe
A train crash near Jakarta, Indonesia, kills at least 16 people and injures 91 others.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment on a story without first reading the relevant article(s).
Oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. Discuss them here.
Use ITN as a forum for your own political or personal beliefs. Such comments are irrelevant to the outcome and are potentially disruptive.
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.
Strong oppose per Masem. Limited withdrawal (there would still be 30k troops remaining in Germany) and who knows if Trump will change his mind tomorrow. Natg 19 (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought (from the blurb framing) that this was a total and permanent withdrawl (which would be notable), apparently not. Gotitbro (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: Spirit Airlines shutdown is one of the more significant events to occur recently in the aviation industry, affecting not just American travelers but international travelers formerly served by Spirit as well. Could be a proverbial canary in the coal mine for low/ultra-low-cost carriers globally. JessicaTTG (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the news, will be interesting to readers, decent quality article. Major news in the aviation history (bear in mind that Spirit operated lines throughout the New World, not just America, so this is an international story). I think we're fulfilling WP:ITNPURPOSE with this. — Knightoftheswords06:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support major airlines don't collapse regularly; this is both significant in the short term (thousands of people potentially stranded), and in the long term (significantly affecting the American aviation market). Article is also in decent shape. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been years since a major airline this important collapsed; as per Elli it's significant in the short term for its effect on stranded passengers, as well as the long term due to its large position in the American and Western Hemisphere aviation industries. Article is of sufficient quality. Electricmemory (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Besides the impact Electricmemory mentioned, over ten thousand people will lose their jobs. ITN has a systemic bias against economic news and scientific news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-18298-57 (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spirit had been on preverbal life support since the pandemic, the impact of the cost of oil and aviation fuel only accelerated it, it did not come as a surprise once the possible govt bailout failed. Its also not one of the major carriers, like United or Delta, which would have a much more dramatic impact to the commercial aviation industry. Its also a tip of the iceberg in terms of impacts if the Iran war is not resolved anytime soon. Masem (t) 11:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Add that the qualify is poor. It is missing much of the story leading to its closure, and 75% of the article is just proseline format which is nowhere close to good quality. Masem (t) 11:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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: Two-time CART champion and paralympic gold medalist. Article appears to be adequately sourced. Ecourter (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support "" Mjroots above, was about to nominate this. I have worked on the lead and other visual adjustments to improve the quality. MB243710:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
State media IRNA reports that Iran has sent a proposal for negotiations with the United States to mediators from Pakistan in an effort to end the Iran war. (Reuters)
Eleven people are killed after a passenger bus carrying medical staff and patients collided head-on with a truck near Otjiwarongo, Namibia. (Xinhua)
At least 11 people are killed and 31 others are injured when a passenger bus veers off a highway and overturns near Amatlán de Cañas, Nayarit, Mexico. (Reuters)
May Day protests are held across the U.S., including an economic blackout as part of 3,500 "May Day Strong" events across the country. Additionally, demonstrations are held outside institutions such as the New York Stock Exchange. (Time)(The Guardian)
Members of Alice Springs' Aboriginal community in Northern Territory, Australia, clash with police outside a hospital where a man charged with the murder of a five-year-old Warlpiri girl is being treated, demanding the suspect be punished under traditional law. This follows a five-day search for the missing girl with large community participation before she was confirmed dead. (The Guardian)
Reporters Without Borders reports that global press freedom has declined to its lowest level since the index began in 2002, with more than half of countries classified under severe conditions and the share of the world's population living in countries with strong press freedom falling to below one percent. (AFP via France 24)
Camp Mystic in Texas, U.S., withdraws an application to reopen during the summer in the wake of the floods last year, which killed 25 campers and two counsellors. (NBC News)
China announces it will ban the sale or renting of commercial drones in Beijing, while existing drone owners will also be required to register their devices with the police, citing security concerns. (BBC News)
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: Around three-quarters of the results are in as per the ABEC, and ABS has projected that ABLP will hold their majority. PtolemyXV (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support article looks good at a glance, maybe massage the blurb to mention they did better than last election, because to me 'retains its majority' makes it sound like they slipped a bit but held on which isn't the case. Scuba02:14, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Two Jewish men are injured in a stabbing attack in Golders Green, London, England, which police describe as a terrorist attack. A 45-year-old man is arrested, and a political motive is being investigated. (The Guardian)
A 21-year-old is detained in Rome, Italy, for shooting and wounding two people with a non-lethal airsoft gun during the celebrations for Liberation Day four days ago. The suspect claims to be affiliated with the Jewish Brigade, whose representatives deny his involvement with the group. (Il Messaggero in Italian)
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.
Support in principle. I haven't had time to go over the opinion in detail yet, but it's a huge deal. I would change "rules" to "holds". I don't know if there's enough support for the phrase "effectively nullifying", but that could just be cope on my part. lethargilistic (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Minor wording concern on "effectively annuling" in blurb, because the ruling did not touch section 2 of the VRA but only said further cases must imclude additional considerations to determine if a map was driven by racial issues. I know this is what analysis are saying and the practical, but I'm wary of putting that type of additional analysis there for ITN (that's like trying to call out sham elections it's a step removed from the news item) If anything from the ruling that we can say directly without inference, it limits the use of Section 2 for future gerrymandering cases. Masem (t) 19:56, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
also reading it again, the ruling did not say racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional (the specific map in question was called unconstitutional though) It's a lot more complicated than that, and while I'm not sure of the right alt wording, something like "weakens the protections of the VRA to prevent racial gerrymandering' may be more accurate. Masem (t) 20:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposed blurb appears to be inaccurate as the article says, The majority did not find Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional. Presenting this matter clearly is difficult because the US system of gerrymandering is so utterly corrupt. I'm in the UK which has a boundary commission to ensure that boundaries are drawn in a rational and reasonably fair manner. Given this background, my take on this ruling is that it's quite marginal as both the Democrats and Republicans will still be rigging the voting boundaries as hard as they can and this is just a tweak to the rules of this corrupt game. There's a lot more to come as the mid-term elections approach and we should not be speculating on this ongoing power-struggle. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it's difficult to assess in a blurb but fundamentally, the GOP are likely to go on a redistricting spree and disfranchise any minority voters in the south (where their population is highest). Some have called this Jim Crow 2.0. Even outside that, that unless there is significant shifts in voting patterns this would allow the GOP to lock control of the House indefinitely. It all stems that while it still exists, the VRA is toothless. But how to phrase that in a neutral blurb isn't simple. Masem (t) 22:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's already an ongoing spree per 2025–2026 United States redistricting. And there have been multiple cases taken to the Supreme Court already but ITN hasn't posted any of them. This just seems to be more of the same and claims about potential repercussions seem to be quite speculative contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. What's been happening in many countries is that traditional parties have been shattered by the winds of change and we shouldn't assume that the US is going to have the same old politics indefinitely. Some speculate that Trump will resort to martial law and other extraordinary devices to cling to power but we'll just have to wait and see. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Honestly, it’s not necessary, in fact, it’s a waste of time, for every SCOTUS decision to be ITN nominated. The consensus and purpose of this page seems to remain unclear, and it’s frankly exhausting. This is not a buffet. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alsor and Andrew. I also feel that redistricting battles are a minor thing as far as US politics goes. Natg 19 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nominator has greatly exaggerated this ruling, which seems to be minor tweaks to USA gerrymandering laws. Nfitz (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unlike some others this is not a groundbreaking or landmark case. We need not post every SCOTUS decision, especially when it has such a rather limited effect. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:11, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "effectively annuling a large part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965"[citation needed] and I don't see why and how electoral redistricting/gerrymandering etc. would be notable for ITN, we have already too many elections as is; and a large party of the notability/notoriety here appears to derive from future considerations than any present impact (WP:CRYSTAL). Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tons and tons of interpretation is needed to see if this is a big deal or not, and clear editorializing in the current blurb, and USA is not the world. We shouldn't be rushing to tell everyone every single SCOTUS decision like this is USApedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:59, 1 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.
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.
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.
Support RD, Oppose Blurb – Two sentence update with regards to the death is not an appropriate ITN feature. Sourcing is good now, nice work! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I added the new legacy section to expand further, but to take a hypothetical, if there was a preexisting legacy section and the article cleaned up to a good point prior to death (maybe because the person was known to be close, went to hospice, or other indictor of near death), such that at death the only update would be to say he died, that should be sufficient for an RD blurb as long as the article quality is there. Of course, often on the death of an important person that would meet RD blurb, the obits that come in could be used to expand the article further, but that said, I think its unrealistic to expect more beyond an update of a few sentences about their death if the rest of the articel clearly is of quality and explains why the person should get an RD Blurb. Masem (t) 22:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a bit of material already in the bio that leans towards significance but that needs far better expansion and in a single location to make a clear case for beingba major figure and thus a blurb. Masem (t) 12:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The lead prose is adequate and the article is sufficiently sourced. The article on Venter also clearly explains a notable legacy of leading efforts to sequence the human genome, which holds a significant weight that merits a blurb. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't have any{{cn}} that I can see. What it has is 106 inline citations, 3 complete books as further reading and a stack of external links. This is more than adequate and so the objection is absurd. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few places were citations are lacking but just not marked, like the reasons he was fired (which as a blp absolutely requires it there). Yes, there are no cn tags but it's clear it's still missing citations. Masem (t) 18:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The reason he was fired is cited by in-text attribution, According to his biography... and, per WP:ILC, that's valid. The real issue with that bit is that the biography just presents Venter's side of the story. I've expanded the details, citing a more independent source too.
This is the way to address such issues – actually reading the article and the sources. Simply looking at footnote numbers is quite inadequate because they prove nothing.
the source might have been there but per our citation requires it must follow material, with very limited exceptions that are outside running prose. That's part of the quality issue, just like my comment above that while the facts to support why he's a great person are all present and sourced, they are scattered about the article and make it far more difficult to judge that for a reader, much less us. That should be improved as well. A blurb is appropriate here but the quality can be so much better with minimal work to support that. Masem (t) 20:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The main point is that the topic still doesn't have any {{cn}} and so KOTS objection is nonsense and should be discounted. Masem's objection is just his usual pining for a legacy section but that is not required: WP:MOSBIO doesn't even mention the word "legacy". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most bios dont need a legacy section. But for someone we are going to feature as a blurb, it makes common sense that a reader can quickly read in one concise section why someone they never might have heard of got a main page itn box. It's a quality issue. Masem (t) 22:27, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb provides an explanation from the outset. If that's not enough so the reader clicks through then the article's lead summarises such key points and this one provides details of their great status in the second paragraph. If the reader wants to know yet more then they might look at sections such as Awards and Nominations. A "legacy" section is tangential to this because legacy is about the stuff that they leave behind and that's not the same as their lifetime achievements. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RD blurbs do not explain more that the person's nationality and profession and age at death. If you have to explain why the person's important in the blurb, that begs that more specific discussion on their importance shpuld be in the body. And it's not that sourcing isn't there, you're adding more at this nom that give a very easy way to create a section. That strengthens the argument to blurb rather than habd waving on claims of importance not present in article. Masem (t) 22:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong blurb support One of the most influential people on the planet. Sufficient sources for this Level-5 vital, C-class article. 2600 etc (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt blurb on significance, but please let's not imply we've created synthetic life. Immensely impactful figure in his field and well beyond. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality. Some of the main sections are unclear and/or undersourced, notably the part about his firing. The part about the HuRef browser is difficult to parse, and what's happening with that "In Popular Culture" section, most of which doesn't consist of pop culture references but is a list of speeches Venter made and similar trivia. Black Kite (talk)10:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a legacy section and better incorporated the awards and some of the In Popular Culture section (namely, how he was covered). Otherwise I've commented out that section as fluff, speaking engagements are always common and not really needed. Also found a PD pic from the 2000 announcement of the draft genome announcement. This should solve the bulk of the issues. Masem (t) 13:52, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Comment: Unless he was primarily known by his first name "Eddy", the article should probably use his last name throughout rather than his first name. Additionally, references 9-14 appear to be from his autobiography, and are the source for a huge chunk of the career section. Not sure if there are additional sources that can corroborate that information as well? SpencerT•C20:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this specific person, but Indonesian names generally don't include either surnames or patronymics, and so either or both of the names given might be the name he was actually know by, formally as well as informally. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there's no additional source since it is a recollection of events from his perspective. I understood that it might give an undue weight on his tenure as deputy ambassador, so best I could do would be to shorten it from two to a single paragraph. Regarding the naming issue, I've clarified it by adding a template on top of the article. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael04:51, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A series of clashes between delinquent cells took place in various part of the municipality of Tecoanapa, Guerrero. The balance of the violence is unknown, but is reported the use of drone bombing and attack against civil infrastructure and the reinforcement of government forces in the area. (La Jornada)
A Bahrainihigh court sentences five people, including two Afghans, to life in prison for plotting "terrorist and hostile acts" with Iran, while another 25 people receive up to ten years for supporting "terrorist acts". (Firstpost)
Article updated The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: This is a somewhat unique case since the election occurred weeks ago, but the controversial nature of the vote count has resulted in the results only really being called recently. Oh, and for the possible opposes, general elections, such as the legislative election here (which for ITN purposes are the main story, not neccesarily the presidential), are ITNR, hence why we post US midterm elections and such. — Knightoftheswords00:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As these articles go it's in comparatively good shape but I do have a few gripes. Firstly, I went through and added a few CN tags I'd like to see resolved before posting. Next, in the lede, Fujimori is described as "far-right". Even her own article does not do that in the lede so, with consensus, I would prefer that to be changed. The Campaign section is too short for posting. Aside from the "issues", there is only one sentence! Once these are fixed, however, I will happily support. I see nothing else holding it back. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:41, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Next, in the lede, Fujimori is described as "far-right". Even her own article does not do that in the lede so, with consensus, I would prefer that to be changed.
Comment maybe just omit the presidential results until the second round and just talk about the legislative results. Scuba03:10, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the one hand, the article has plenty of prose about what happened afterward and a decent bit about the campaign. On the other hand, the article is dominated by some lists and tables in the middle that are not obviously tied to the article. I'm not saying the lists of candidates and their professions and running mates are unencyclopedic, just that they are dominating the article. Also, the background section's final paragraph seems like a non-sequitur and I have tagged the first sentence as needing further explanation. ~2026-17182-02 (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Though this is ITNR, it has been hard to find sources that discuss the results of the legislative election portion, as most focus on the presidential runoff. There is no "analysis" portion for those results in our article, as we typically do in other articles. Natg 19 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
Nominator's comments: New Amsterdam approaches the Old Amsterdam quadrifecta of legal sportsbetting, legal weed, legal Vegas-style casinos now only missing legal brothels (though laws against consensual prostitution aren't enforced anymore in parts). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big though only 0.1-0.3% of world population change a few years ago none of these were legal now legal weed shops & legal sidewalk weed smoke seem to be everywhere. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since this is merely a local news. Also what exactly is the "full casino" and why being "full casino" is significant enough to warrant a blurb? NotKringe (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So that means this is essentially just broadening what kind of gambling establishment is allowed. Since there aren't any blurb proposal for when gambling as a whole were legalized in the other US states, I doubt this is even significant enough to warrant a blurb. NotKringe (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Edging on promotional, and certainly not the first case of a major casino opening in a metro area (nothing about it being in NYC makes it unique) Masem (t) 01:31, 29 April 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.
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: this is effective as of May 1, so we could wait to post then though the coverage is happening today and doesnt seem like something that they will reverse in next few days. And while this can be argued as part if the ongoing, this is a major fracture of OPEC that could cause it to collapse. Article is not updated as this is breaking news. Masem (t) 13:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle as it is significant (FT calls it a significant blow to the oil cartel, [9]) but someone far more talented than me should suggest an alt blurb. "Due to impacts from the Iran war" is too vague and doesn't really add anything. I'd prefer the sentence without that phrase to be honest. Cherrytxrt📧13:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support significance, but oppose quality until the article is properly updated so that it meets WP:ITNUPDATE, otherwise it looks good as a GA. I added an altblurb based on the statement from the UAE's official news agency but I'm not sure if it's much better than the main one. ~2026-25950-62 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not updated. Given the current article talks about the UAE overproducing even before this, ie. this may not strictly be an Iran war issue, the blurb to go with may depend on what the updated article includes. CMD (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems significant but as others mentioned the article needs additional details. I've added some additional details however I wonder if meeting WP:ITNUPDATE would invariably lead to giving it WP:UNDUE weight on the OPEC article. :Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
what the OPEC article needs is a section under History to bring it up to date with recent issues of the Iran War and the of course the departure of UAE. That is a natural place for the update. Masem (t) 15:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – United Arab Emirates should not be wikilinked per MOS:OL and long-standing ITN practices. Also, spelling out "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries" is unnecessary when OPEC is the common/recognizable name. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
in this specific case we are talking about the country (and it's govt), and thus would normally not fall into the reasons to not link well known geography terms. Masem (t) 17:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recent examples show that ITN still doesn't link when we are talking about the country (and it's govt) (e.g., 3 March 2026, where Israel, United States, Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan are unlinked), so I'm unaware of this exception you speak of. Also, long-standing ITN practices still exist (something that's been discussed before). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 18:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait to see if this actually happens, or is just some negotiating thing. Agree that we should just say OPEC - which is has been very familiar to us for over a half-century - probably more so than the full name. Would we spell out NATO or NASA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle If the UAE actually leaves and the article is sufficiently updated with the rationale/analysis. But wait till it actually happens, cannot end up with a egg on our faces considering the unending backtracking this war has produced. Gotitbro (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This hasn't happened yet and it's not clear that it will make much difference if it does happen. OPEC's formal membership isn't significant because it appears that the de facto grouping that matters is OPEC+ and that's different. For example, Venezuela is nominally a member of OPEC but Russia isn't. But if you look at the most recent statement, you can see that Russia is involved but Venezuela isn't. So, we should focus on the reality of what's happening rather supposing that the original historical organisation has any substance now. The main thing that seems to be happening here is an increasing rift between the UAE and Saudi Arabia and that has multiple aspects including the wars in Iran, Sudan and Yemen. Saudi Arabia–United Arab Emirates relations might be a better target article as it explains these various tensions. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OPEC+ isn't a formal organisation. UAE's key issue is that it wants to produce oil without limit because it has a different strategy and business plan from the Saudis. This has been a dispute for some time and the breach is happening now as a move in the Iran war, where the UAE isn't happy with the way it has played out. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In your first comment, you say that OPEC+ is what matters and you oppose based on that. Now, OPEC+ is just informal with no meaning? Which is it? Make up your mind. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My primary point is that this hasn't happened yet. As and when we report some significant effect we should get the big picture right. The OPEC article explains that Since the 1980s, OPEC has had a limited impact on world oil-supply and oil-price stability, as there is frequent cheating by members on their commitments to one another, and as member commitments reflect what they would do even in the absence of OPEC. Lots of other countries have left OPEC including Indonesia, Qatar, Ecuador, Angola and Gabon. ITN didn't report any of those, did it?
The important topics currently are 2026 Strait of Hormuz crisis and Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war. The coverage indicates that these are very significant but ITN hasn't reported them despite multiple nominations. The OPEC membership change is a detail in this big picture.
The OPEC article needs a big spring clean to update old content and remove errors. Our blurb should focus on actual effects rather than formalities. For example, the UAE can increase its production by about a million barrels per day. But the Strait of Hormuz blockade is stopping the flow of about 20 million barrels per day. So, this is a potential tweak of 5% which seems quite marginal. The price of oil has actually gone up rather than down on the news, which confirms that it's not so significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:51, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom once it happens, with altblurb2 being the better option. I would usually be wary about posting later when something is in the news now, but it is only two days away, so waiting to post is acceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:41, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb 2 as it is concise and gets the point across. Wait until May 1st as it won't require further update to the blurb and it is so soon the news won't be stale.
Comment I have expanded the history section in the OPEC article to cover the updates across 2026 (including the impact of the war and UAE's departure), which should resolve the update issue on the article. Masem (t) 02:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
Oppose Article doesn't meet quality standards. Suggest speedy close and relist if it ever is improved. That the number of deaths exceeds the capacity of the plane isn't even mentioned in the article. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Although I made the article, and the crash did have 10+ fatalities, the article is short and isn't worthy of ITN. Although a tragedy, it isn't big enough. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality, support on notability aside from the quality comments above, although I will note it is woefully underquality, I do support based on notability once it is improved. Although we usually stray away from posting private plane crashes the unusually high casualty count I believe warrants posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:30, 28 April 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.
Oppose - no mention in the article or the nomination that the accident is in Greater Jakarta. If a plane was to crash in Romulus, Michigan, would we fail to mention it's proximity to Detroit? A bit quick - lets see some improvements and more details as the day passes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs) 03:14, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why would saying it's in the province of West Java (Jawa Barat) tell me where it is, @ZKang123? The best known proper city in Jawa Barat is Bandung. Jawa Barat is bigger than Belgium, Albania, or Armenia! It's bigger than Indiana or Maine! Nfitz (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh ... I've ever even heard of Calabasas! Removing objection with the current blurb. And I added a mention of Jakarta to the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This has been reported on internationally. The death toll seems to be rapidly rising, with more than a dozen confirmed deaths as of this writing.
Support. Irrespective of the location of where the incident takes place in, this incident is the biggest Indonesian railway accident within the decade and within recent memory. The article will surely improve as more information is published. RealDeemZ (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is the process for this nomination discussion taking longer than previous high casualty train incidents. There hasn’t even been any comment nor dissent even if there are low article quality concerns, “low-impact event”, etc. SymphonyWizard72 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Question Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning on support since this accident seems to be disruptive enough, but I wondered if the high number of injuries play a role in this getting support? Since the blurb for the Cessna crash above also have 15 fatalities but no injured and these were being opposed, so I wondered if we have a clear cut line on which accident is notable and which one isn't. NotKringe (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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: Influential comic writer for both Marvel and DC; the article looks fine to me. I did fix a citation needed tag prior to posting here. Vinnie927 (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Almost ready – Extremely close to meeting RD requirements. Mostly the section "In 2015, ..." is uncited, which does describe a substantial section of his career in short form. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm hesitant supporting a feature for a disaster where the headline is a toll of evacuees rather than of actual, tangible damage. To that end, 3,000 isn't a large-scale enough evacuation for me to support it today, unless something major happens in the next few days. Also note: the article has been moved to 2026 Ōtsuchi wildfires (plural) after this nom was written. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the article creator, this fire is the largest fire since the Heisei era, which, by now is larger than the Kushiro Fire of 1992. I don't know much about ITN so, I'll let @ArionStar: do the blurb for me, but this is a possible angle here. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – ITNSIGNIF is weak (Reuters is the only big international source I'm finding), but I don't think we've featured a Japanese wildfire before (dynamic) and the article is certainly of sufficient quality to be a nice feature. Looks good to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quality and “not being previously festured” are not sufficient criteria. Why the second largest fire is ITN-worthy with 0 casualties reported? _-_Alsor (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ArionStar! @Alsor97:, we should prioritize featuring well-updated articles of high quality. Other aspects can only ever be secondary. WP:ITNPURPOSE also suggests some other guidelines to focus on, like emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. "Significance" is a base criterium, but it's mostly unrelated to the purpose of ITN. It's mostly a minimum hurdle to clear. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-three people are kidnapped in an attack by gunmen on an orphanage in Kogi State, Nigeria. Fifteen are rescued, while eight children remain missing. (BBC News)
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.
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.
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.
Support – Article looks to be of sufficient quality for RD, though I didn't do a full source review. I don't think this affects the existing blurb discussion in any way, as the article would not be of sufficient quality to appear in a blurb I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oppose it's included with the Mali attacks (as is def in). FOR Example, if trump were to have been assassinated, would we have him on blurb and RD? Psephguru (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2250 characters (383 words) "readable prose size" and sourced. Should be posted in RD, despite included in ongoing. Grimes216:30, 28 April 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.
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.
Procedural note: the date should actually be 26 April, not 27 April, but moving this to another section on a mobile phone would be too painful for me to do at this moment. Toadspike[Talk]23:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Article is well written and comprehensive, but there are 3 citation needed tags in key places, a vague tag that needs resolving (or removal perhaps?), quite a few of the exhibitions are uncited, and many of the books are missing ISBN numbers (or details that can otherwise identify them). Abcmaxx (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Article updated One or both nominated events are listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Support, thanks, first I've read this. So the two-minute mark has been broken, and by a lot. Very notable human endurance/sporting event accomplishment. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major sporting achivement, and IIRC since we posted London Marathon winners before I guess this year's blurb is going to be a little bit more notable. NotKringe (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a notable record and for what it's worth the London Marathon is on ITNR. (The Boston Marathon is too but that seems to have been forgotten.) Jessintime (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Running a marathon in under two hours was long considered physiologically impossible, but has now been achieved. Grimes214:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment: The Sawe bio is in no fit state to be posted. Referencing is below par; have just gone through and tagged missing citations. I would also like to see a "Private life" section that references his date of birth. Schwede6618:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready. The ITNR event here is the London marathon - so that should be the bold link. However that article is barely more than a stub. Sawe's is not much better and has an orange-level tag. The 'two hour barrier' is entirely arbitrary, so this should simply be described as a world record. I've added an alt2 blurb. I'd like to see this posted but none of the articles are in good enough shape (or have too small an update), even if we were to IAR by selecting a different bold link. Modest Geniustalk18:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but quick caveat. The two hour milestone is arbitrary, as Modest Genius said, but it’s undeniably been a major target for marathoners and enthusiasts for decades. Breaking that is absolutely a huge historical milestone in running, same as the first four minute mile even though that pace has long since been shattered. Breaking world records are always a big deal, but the sub two hour mark is what makes this event a bigger deal that’ll get way more media attention than preceding or later record breakings in all likelihood. RPH (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The 2-hour milestone is comparable to the 4-minute mile, as I read the sources on this, that puts this beyond just a broken world record. Its true that is completely arbitrary but also thought at one point impossible to cross. Masem (t) 20:05, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ITNSIGNIF as this is far less important and far less newsworthy than many articles about battles and disasters that are not posted and there many such cases around the world all the time. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality. The marathon article is a stub, and the article on Sawe is barely better. It is just a wink above the size, but the requirement at WP:ITNQUALITY says the article must be a "minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items". Without "early life" or "personal life", and with the "career" section not very much expanded, this article does not meet that benchmark yet. Hopefully that can be fleshed out soon, because this was a major landmark. — Amakuru (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first blurb. I'm encouraged by the noticeable improvements to the Sawe article today and expect those to continue. Also, note on ALT 1 blurb, if it's chosen it should say (emphasis mine), "Sabastian Sawe wins the 2026 London Marathon and becomes the first to break the two-hour barrier.". --Habst (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please tell the world where Sawe is from in the blurb, and drop the word "barrier". That's tabloid language. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How else can you how he exceeded this 2 hour milestone? If you are talking breaking worlds records, breaking a barrier absolutely is standard lanuage here. Masem (t) 03:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support modified alt1 for concision, and as it would be "hookier" to put forward the main accomplishment (breaking the barrier) and invite readers to click on the article for the details (precise time). However, also open to a slightly more concise version of the original blurb if the consensus is that we shouldn't omit information for the sake of hookiness. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The breaking of world records is not ITN/R. The London Marathon is ITN/R but that's not currently the target article and we would normally blurb its winners in the various categories, not just the men, right. So, currently it's a muddle.
Regarding the two-hour time, note that the second-place runner broke this time too in their first marathon. The shattering of the record seems mainly due to perfect conditions and a new lightweight super shoe. (NYT) It was a shoe-in!
Mentioning the shoe might be seen as slightly undue or even promotional, as, while it may just be what allowed these records to be set, it hasn't been the focus of most news stories on the topic (which is the "what" rather than the "how"). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if we are posting based on the London marathon being ITNR, the blurb needs to include the womens' winner too. Masem (t) 22:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Neither of these articles are ready for a frontpage feature. I'm bewildered by how many supports an article of this quality is getting. At least the update is already looking fine I suppose. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose that to be fair. The reason why this event is ITN is not necessarily because it's the London marathon; it's because it's a marathon that is record eligible. Cherrytxrt📧23:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added an ALT4 blurb then with that change. I would be OK with any of them personally though I think the two hours part is the most notable. --Habst (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A dilemma here that I don't think we've encountered before is where we have an ITNR event, but there is something else about the event that would independently qualify for ITN (breaking the record). I feel that in this case we still need to make sure that we're meeting the ITNR as well as the ITN, as otherwise instead of improving the ITNR article, they could post an ITN related to it to get it passed. This also hurts keeping the London Marathon on the list - if we don't post an ITNR regularly due to lack of quality or nominations, that's a reason to remove it. So trying to push this only on the record article (either the old or new one) is a problem. Let's also add that Assefa won in her bracket and also broke the previous record, so covering only the mens' result is a gender bias that we absolutely need to overcome. That's why I included alt3 above, but that's still on the basis of the Marathon article getting up to spec. Masem (t) 23:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Its better but I would see if you can have a section on planning and preparations, and also consider if there's any reception or viewsership info by now. Masem (t) 01:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, OK, I added a planning section and a reception section. TV viewership numbers haven't been released yet. What do you think now? --Habst (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was of the understanding that, if an ITNR article does not reach quality requirements to be featured, that that would not negatively impact its "score" (sotospeak). After all, ITNR is about whether ITNSIGNIF can be assumed and ignored, not about whether the article consistently reaches the quality and update requirements. Surely if we have a better article to feature, then that would be fine? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, while generally we don't allow proxying in some other article because the ITN/R one is not up to scratch, that doesn't mean it gets to lock out some other aspect of the story that isn't part of the ITN/R routine angle. In this case, Sawe breaking a much heralded psychological landmark, often compared to the 4 minute mile, I think that story easily qualifies on its own. The ITN/R is not relevant here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The larger concern is that while many of the sources are focused on the mens' result and passing the 2hour mark (which I'm not ignoring as important), we have a womens' winner as well who also set a record there. Posting only the mens' result because of the 2hour mark and not working to get the race article to quality status is creating a gender bias that we have to fight against. If it was only a mens' marathon and nothing else, that logic would be fine, but I think we have to be more aware of the gender bias issue here. Masem (t) 11:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's good to point out, and I hope our editors will improve these articles. I did mention that the women's winner already seemed a more promising article for a feature anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:03, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I propose creating two blurbs, one for the women's-only world record and one for the men's world record. At this point, all five articles linked in blurbs are ready for ITN quality-wise. --Habst (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide: I agree that it most closely aligns with the relevant guidelines, but I don't agree that it was a good choice in this particular case. We generally don't post world records in athletics, unless the broken world record stood for a long period of time or the result is a major achievement. The main reason why this is significant is that it's the first sub-two-hour marathon under regular conditions (without pacemakers), so that's a very important detail that has to be mentioned somewhere in the blurb. If not, then we set a precedent to post world records in marathon, which aren't that uncommon (see the marathon world record progression). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I posted Sawe's image, but Bagumba's image change was totally reasonable to me. On sports blurbs with men's and women's results, we often seem to give an image a day or two of airtime and then switch it over for variety and balance. Bagumba, I'm wondering if you had an opinion on if/when to switch it back? Left guide (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the unwritten practice is to give an image at least 24h. Someone with basic image processing skills could also combine the two winners into one image to post. I'm not that talented. —Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's astounding that the blurb fails to mention the 2-hour threshold, which is precisely the reason this event is as 'in the news' as it is. Likewise how the photograph is not of Sabastian Sawe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26351-25 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. A marathon record isn't that notable. The first offical sub 2 hour marathon is and yet we only mentioned that a record was broken and not that it broke the 2 hour barrier. TaqPCR (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's comments: Assassination attempt against DJT. Some details aren't clear yet, though this is frontpage news. Jalapeño(utg)02:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CBS news reports two sources told CBS News that he told law enforcement following his arrest that he wanted to shoot Trump administration officials. See [11]
That's splitting hairs. That can just mean he wanted to shoot the President- the ultimate administration official- as well as other officials.
Besides, I would argue that, even if I accept your argument, an assassination attempt on every other administration official at the event other than Trump (if that is even plausible) is still significant. Cherrytxrt📧10:13, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When both of the proposed blurbs focus on Trump with one explicitly stating his "attempted assassination" that is simply not a question of "splitting hairs" but very well determinative for ITN notability. Gotitbro (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a problem of blurb accuracy, we can use the alt blurb. If it is a problem of notability, whether or not it was against Trump personally is irrelevant; it would be notable if he wanted to shoot administration officials. Cherrytxrt📧10:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed (by anon sources) attempted assassination of undefined Trump admin officials won't be notable. It can range from anyone to anything. I'd say even if the top honchos of the Trump cabinet were actually targeted it would still be non-notable considering the nature of this all but nullified in the bud attack. Gotitbro (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Not known to be an assassination attempt at this time. If it was, then the suspect got nowhere near the president that it hardly even counts as an attempt. I lean towards opposing unless this story blows up, which is possible but we should certainly wait first. MountainJew6150 (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into the archives (and my memory) , the closest I can find is the Sept. 2024 incident in Florida. From the archives, its ITN nom did not get close to posting and was snow closed just 1 day later. As said above it is unclear many facts about the shooting, and even if it was an assasination attempt it did not even get close to succeeding. So, I lean towards oppose as of now. Although looking at the video one would seem it was a rather serious threat. I may reconsider, given more information in the coming hours. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While ITNATA does indeed say this, ITN de facto heavily relies on precedent when making decisions about what to post and the language of ITNATA does not accurately reflect the reality of how ITN works. Not saying this is a good thing or how it should be, just saying we very much do take into consideration what we previously did or did not blurb. Vanilla Wizard 💙14:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"This also holds true for arguments based on similar stories which have coincidentally appeared recently, such as multiple elections on the same day, etc. Please assess and comment on the merits of each story on its own accord, not in relation to other similar stories."
I think the context there is to avoid making arguments based on avoiding frequency of a given topic or on whats current ITN, for example "We've had too many political stories recently" or "there's already three wars posted". I don't think that applies to using past stories as precedent. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as only injury being reported is a Secret Service agent that got shot. Nothing crazy about the shooting besides being at a White House event with Trump. FunIsOptional (talk) (please use ping!) 02:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a minor story since the shooter did not get close to Trump, and there were no deaths. If Trump was injured or shot at, I would support but that was not the case. Natg 19 (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose It is unknown if the shooter was targeting Trump. This is my sole reason for why I am opposing. I might change my vote if it was revealed to be an assassination attempt, but for now, it is yet to be known.
Not exactly an "ordinary American Saturday" when a significant political figure was inside a building at the exact time the building was shot at. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is this the first time. Shootings have occurred in the vicinity of the White House on several occasions while the incumbent president was in residence. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I too already voted on team "oppose," I think your reasoning shouldn't be seriously considered, especially as there are three mass shootings ITN on the main page as of right now (which is honestly probably some kind of record). It's clear that shootings across the globe are drawing in a lot of media attention right now. Of course I do not believe this incident should be on the main page, but your reply is part of the reason why America is so desensitized to gun violence. This isn't normal. And your claim of it being "ordinary" is especially untrue when you factor in that this is probably the most serious attempt on Trump's life (or at least Trump's cabinet) since September 2024 (unless we count the failed Mar-a-lago break-in, but that story was so buried that I didn't even know about it until yesterday), which very much makes this not an "ordinary American Saturday." MountainJew6150 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not yet confirmed whether it was an actual assassination attempt. Also the shooter never got close to firing at Trump. Looking back at past cases, the assassination attempt in Pennsylvania was posted back then because it was more serious and because Trump got wounded in that attempt. The one in Florida didn't get posted because the shooter never got close to the President to deliver an actual wound. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is an article, not in any danger of being deleted. It is widely covered by international press. It is clearly more in the real world news than an election that took place 14 days ago. Rolluik (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support.WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument,and people relying on it should not count as consensus. This is clearly ITN, it's featured prominently at the top of the websites of NYT, BBC, CBS, CNN, Politico and basically everywhere else.
Looking at ITN precedent/history for similar stories and nominations stemming thereof is very well a valid argument. It might be in the breaking news but fortunately ITN isn't, as an encyclopedia I'd wait for anyone to state the significance of a shooting which killed no one, injured no one was nowhere near the the person the significance of this allegedly stems from. So, what are we left with beyond another entry in the ever expansive list of mass shootings in the United States in 2026 (which runs all the way back to List of mass shootings in the United States (1900–1999)).
ITNTRUMP is not policy nor does it apply here since it is a much more serious and notable event than what is described in the essay. Jalapeño(utg)10:18, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's a handy essay and what I meant when citing it, it is better to be on the watch out for any topic solely deriving its notoreity from Trump. There might be cases when those are notable but as I lay out above this simply isn't it. Gotitbro (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It comes to a point, @Cherrytxrt that other stuff is a factor, with this weird over-reporting that seems to happen in one particular country that seems overly obsessed with this stuff. When this kind of stuff happens in other nations - even G7 nations - we often don't even see standalone articles - let alone a mad rush here to nominate yet another USA story. There does seem to be an undue amount of reporting here - probably because every significant news outlet on the planet had reporters who could hear the shots a couple of floors away. Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if it wasn't an attempted assassination of trump (id be suprised if it wasn't) an attempted shooting at such a highly important event still warrents a blurb on ITN. AntarcticFoxes10:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both blurbs. This does not seem to have been very near Trump and there were other high profile people there who might also have been targets. (Yes, I know that Trump is by far the most likely target but that not the same as certain fact.) I don't oppose it if a better burb can be found. Mentioning that Trump was in attendance is OK but it should not go beyond that unless further facts become known. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The second blurb is completely pointless and unencyclopedic. While the theory that the terrorist’s intention was to kill Trump and other officials is becoming increasingly plausible by the police, fortunately no one was injured, the incident did not escalate, and everyone was able to be evacuated, so it is not ITN-worthy. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Possible assassination on the president. Unlike the incident with the Ryan Wesley Routh, this gunman actually fired shots, hit someone and probably would have shot Trump officials like he intended to. It has been also receiving non-stop coverage worldwide, and is probably one of the biggest news events recently. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly where we find out who was specifically targeted here, to assess the significance. So far so nothing has it going for any of the proposed blurbs. Gotitbro (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every time Trump trumps his pants it's worldwide news, such is the state of the world. That doesn't make it ITN. Reading the details that have come available since yesterday's incident, the shooting wasn't even on the same floor but one (or two?) floors above in the lobby of a hotel! Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If this was an assassination attempt (still unclear), it was a pretty inept one that didn't get past the first security check. The attacker never came close to Trump. If the attempt had been successful it would certainly be worth posting, but it failed long before getting close to the target(s). We don't post things that didn't happen, but might have done. Modest Geniustalk18:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"If the attempt had been successful": nice way to put it, this wasn't just a failed assassination, it was a failed attempt at a failed assassination (i.e. though that again requires a presumption of any claims of "assassination attempt" to be true). Gotitbro (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what a failed assassination has to do with false flag; I think that you are the first person to raise the spectre of that, @Knightoftheswords281. It's all a bit granular in the descriptions, but one could call Butler a successful attempt at a failed assassination. While the subject survived, the attempt was successfully made. If the attempt wasn't even attempted, with the attacker not even coming within the same floor as the victim (let alone room), then not only did the assassination fail, but so did the attempt! I see no point of this debate though - it has nothing to do with the lack (or not) of notability in the attempt. But I also don't see the need to to not AGF and start referring to false flags - I'll remind KotS that is not a forum. Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because anything that is nominated needs to be on the front page of some random local newspaper that doesn't have that far of a reach than national news. ~2026-25032-90 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the fundamental basis of en.wiki, NOTNEWS and all. Massive coverage is not equivalent to demonstrating encyclopedic content, because we're writing for the long-term basis, not the short term like newspapers are designed to do. Masem (t) 03:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS is for article content, not ITN. Per WP:ITNPURPOSE, what readers view is absolutely vitally important to the process of ITN; after all, they’re the ones reading it, and the fact that’s considered a hot take here shows that many regulars are frankly not contributing here to actually build an informative, encyclopedic project. If you object to the lines To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news and To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them, you can start an RFC on WT:ITN to have them removed, though I certainly won’t back such a proposal. — Knightoftheswords05:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've already pointed out on the talk page that when these guidelines as they are written were added, that wasn't the intent to be focused on breaking news, but to help demonstrate WP as a dynamic resource that shows quality articles that happen to be in the news. Misinterpreting these to say that a widely covered news story should at ITN is not appropriate. And NOTNEWS is not just about article content but the entire encyclopedia that is focused on long-term coverage, not short term bursts of news. Masem (t) 11:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
to help demonstrate WP as a dynamic resource that shows quality articles that happen to be in the news
Is the nominated article not an example of that? No one is saying that ITN has to be a news ticker, at least in the sense of covering every minor online spat between American politicos or whatever, but to go from that to including real, concrete events receiving sustained, WP:RS coverage with full-fledged articles as being under the same umbrella is ludricous.
the key is "happen to be in the news", which means we give zero weight to how much coverage or importance that news media give to a topic. So we are not required to post stories that the media that works on a 24/7 cycle highlight, we are looking for those that are appropriate encyclopedic topics and will impact the long term. Masem (t) 16:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
we give zero weight to how much coverage or importance that news media give to a topic
As of when? People constantly bring up media coverage relating to an ITN topics notability all the time. A huge segment of WP:ITNSIGNIF literally states that media coverage is most often used as a criteria for posting. Again, no one is saying that every update on the Iran war, or every minor new drama story of American politics (like the Julia Varvaro situation) be posted to ITN, but again, it's a massive leap to compare like Iranian AI Lego videos to the blockade or the latter to the recent snowstorm (or frankly IMO [although regulars would disagree], stuff like Pam Bondi getting fired).
Additionally, once again, who is this we? Cause I actually am starting to slightly understand your philosophy more on this topic, but only a handful of the nominations you personally have made to ITNC have been accepted by folks on here. — Knightoftheswords22:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your response is rlly(sic) emblematic of your incomprehension of how this place work, @281. You've been told many many times that this isn't a news site. And yet your response to it being repeated, is denial? Nfitz (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think your response is rlly emblematic of your incomprehension of what I've been saying @Nfitz. I have never stated that Wikipedia is a news site, or that ITN is to serve as a news ticker in the literal sense. What I did say was that we have a service to provide our readers with stories that their likely to be looking for in the news, or nonetheless intrigue them, y'know, what WP:ITNPURPOSE explicitly says. The fact that readers are somehow not even important to you and many other regulars here serves to show that clearly many are not on ITN to promote a positive development of the encyclopedia (whether that's conscious or not is up for debate). — Knightoftheswords03:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use obscure abbreviations. I actually thought you misspelled "rily"! Also don't gaslight us. I simply said this wasn't a news site, and your response was "Above comment is rlly emblematic of the central issues of ITN". You need to tell the truth here, not make stuff up. Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ... but I don't think the world looks, @Knightoftheswords281, to Wikipedia for breaking news. We don't even create articles for such minor nutter with guns doesn't come anywhere near target in other G7 countries. Nfitz (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, but probably oppose per MountainJew6150. Unless something truly significant comes out of it, it isn't noteworthy enough (as many other editors have explained already.) Saying "assassination on Trump" without sources saying that it was an assassination is a serious NOR violation. I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me21:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - No deaths, no injuries to significant notable individuals, and, unfortunately, this type of thing seems to be growing more and more common in U.S. politics. – LuniZunie(talk)03:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.This article convinced me that this was not actually that big a deal. Somebody tried to do something that systems are in place to prevent, and those systems successfully prevented it. Naturally there was a lot of coverage before it became clear that that was the case, but it will likely fade quickly. blameless03:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Definitely a security breach, but questions remain. It's pure editorializing to say it was an assassination attempt against anyone, since I don't think we know the person's motives as of yet. Second, it was a security breach with one injury, no deaths. Multiple security breaches and attacks have occurred in past administrations but weren't posted to ITN. This is in fact a bit more serious, but it's still within the scale of past events. There's in fact an entire list: List of White House security breaches. Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a significant event that involved prominent individuals that has or could have had significant ramifications. As such, it should be added in. QuisEstJoe (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
main page is mainspace content. What is not mainspace content are talk pages, pages in the wikipedia: namespace, and othe utility pages. Main Page is not in those so is handled like main space abd thus must meet all content policies too. Masem (t) 16:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, otherwise DYK would have been nuked a long time ago for various content stylization choices that would not fly in actual articles. Frankly, the MP is in the mainspace largely for technical and reader searchability reasons and is functionally apart of the project space (see how all of the main pages subpages like WP:ERRORS use WP:Main Page as the parent page). See other Wikipedias like elwiki that have the MP in the portalspace. — Knightoftheswords22:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--an attack cut short far too soon to have major implications, in my eyes. That being said, while every attack has merits on its own right in terms of its notability for a project such as Wikipedia, this isn't the news of worldwide importance ITN was made for, even if it did involve world leaders. We're about 36 hours out and hardly anything's come of this since. Seems this nom's a dead heat too, more opposes than supports with this much participation, about equal rationales on each side of the !vote. Departure– (talk) 14:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Even if its the third such attempt, it appears significant nonetheless. Coverage is ongoing, discussions on security and the alleged necessity for Trump's ballroom. And as Knightoftheswords notes, this is of interest to our readers. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks♥) 16:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suspected shooter has been charged with attempting to assassinate the president which makes this an assassination attempt. Plus a shooting at an event where all major political figures especially in the line of succession are assembled at is rare in the U.S. to be fair TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Harizotoh9 and Departure. Violence at or surrounding political events is frequent in the United States, and in this case, there were no significant casualties, injuries, or fatalities. Someone attempted to run through the doors and was thwarted. This is the type of story which is reported on in the news, but is not "significant" in terms of WP:ITNCRIT. FlipandFlopped㋡01:36, 29 April 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.
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.
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 politician from Idaho, Secretary of the interior Goosedukeee (talk)
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: Mali's Minister of Defence that was assassinated in the recent FLA-JNIM joint offensive. Article appears to be fine, as it is sufficiently sourced throughout. Relating to Camara's date of birth, the treasury sanctions from July 2023 does verify that. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I am the one who created the article in 2021 or so, so I do not know if my !vote counts. Nevertheless, the article has been expanded after his death, but I'm unsure it passes the status of stub. If it does and a bit can be added about him, I'll strike my "weak" wording. CoryGlee22:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just made a request to move the target article to 2026 Azawad Liberation Front offensive since the current title is too vague at the moment. I'm leaning into support at the moment since this seems to be a major offensive of a faction that hasn't been active for quite some time. NotKringe (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality of article appears fine, sufficiently sourced throughout. The notability is clearly met because it is being reported internationally and the offensive is another significant update in the Mali War. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as there were several hundred fatalities among the attackers alone, a helicopter was shot down and the defence minister was assassinated. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Major development of the Mali war; the quality of 2026 Mali attacks looks fair; and the articles on the specific armed groups such as Azawad Liberation Front vs Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin seem to be clear enough and reasonably updated (in contrast to some earlier cases where trying to sort out how each organisation was related to other ones and when and how they split or united, and crucially, which sources supported these, was Monty Pythonesque). Boud (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Surprised to see this wasn't already listed given the widespread scale of the attacks across the country and the profound implications for several state and nonstate actors in the region, including Russia. The article is in good shape and the conflict is widely covered in the news. It would certainly be worth noting the recent death of Mali's Defence Minister Sadio Camara (and thereby linking to Killing of Sadio Camara in addition to the 2026 Mali attacks article) but I appreciate that might also make the blurb too complicated. Oppius Brutus13:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a major event involving a deadly conflict that has crucial ramifications for an entire country. As such, it should be put in the ITN box. QuisEstJoe (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, major event in one of the most deadly modern conflicts that will also cause problems for the ruling junta. --SpectralIon15:35, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we take into account genocides in the context of onflicts, then one of the most deadly modern conflicts is dubious. Currently, Mali war has a vague source (Our World in Data; archive = "No table loaded yet") that suggests 13k civilians+military deaths from 2012 to 2023, while the Tigray genocide best estimate for the number of Tigrayan civilians exterminated from Nov 2020 to Nov 2022 is around 160k to 380k, about 2 to 5% of the total Tigrayan population, and about 10 to 30 times as much as the Mali war 13k civilian+military estimate.[1] Maybe the problem is the poor sourcing for the casualty count in Mali war? The Sudanese civil war (2023–present) is also very deadly. Boud (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of split on whether or no we should take into account genocides considering how they're both a special and arguably a separate form of casualties than standard warfare deaths, but even if we do and the Mali war isn't one of the most deadly modern conflicts, it's still one of the more notably destructive and impactful ones, and the recent attacks in the war deserve attention. QuisEstJoe (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt2. Article looks ready now and this is a significant development in the war, regardless of whether the Mali war is statistically up there as the highest or not. I want to support alt2 specifically because the present tense is more appropriate in news articles, and alt2 is more concise than alt3. Cherrytxrt📧23:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
^Negash, Emnet (24 May 2023). "Updated assessment of civilian starvation deaths during the Tigray war". Archived from the original on 4 July 2023. Retrieved 4 July 2023. As our estimate of the civilian deaths in the Tigray war is regularly mentioned in the media, it seems important to share our evolving understanding and updated (lower) number of civilian deaths as a result of the Tigray war and blockade. We concluded that the IPC/FEWS categorization, on which our Tigray statistics are mainly based, overestimates hunger mortality. Along with developing information on the ground, this would point to a total number of civilian deaths ranging from 162,000 to 378,000.
Support Alt3 Per Nice4What. On my review of the sources, most seem to mention the alliance between the ALF and JNIM. The blurb should reflect this, given we also frame the attacks as being a joint endeavour in the bolded article. FlipandFlopped㋡01:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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:
In the news toolbox_2025.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg/250px-2026_Bekasi_Timur_train_collision%2C_6024_car_wreckage_(3).jpg)
.jpg)
Posted alt3, as that most closely aligns with the relevant guideline at WP:ITNSPORTS for this event. Left guide (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)