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.
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 linked 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 blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
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.
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 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.
Not ready – I leave this message, so please ping me (I will check anyway) so I can strike and support in the case it passes the quality threshold. I think that it totally meets ITN criteria for inclusion if quality met/upgraded (mainly refs). I will not edit so I can vote for Supp. CoryGlee00:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality per all above. Relocating a national capital is obviously notable news, but the CDLP article isn't good enough for the FP at the moment. TheKip(contribs)06:19, 6 January 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: Hockey Hall of Famer, former Leafs and Kings player, former Kings and Blackhawks coach and exec. RPH (talk) 23:28, 5 January 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.
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.
I thought maybe combine the blurbs and pull the earlier one. Not sure if there's any precedent for that. I'll add an altblurb that incorporates more from the earlier blurb.–DMartin20:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose We already have the unlawful abduction of the current president by terrorists blurbed. That the already VP is the acting president is simply part of that process. Now if someone outside the line of succession were to become the permanent president, than that should be blurbed. Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with existing blurb This is a natural consequence of Maduro's abduction as it leaves him unable to perform his duties as President. I agree with Orbitalbuzzsaw that the existing blurb on the situation should be updated rather than having two separate blurbs. PolarManne (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability, oppose on quality. Maduro's blurb must be updated to reflect Venezuela's new governmental reality, with Rodríguez as the new head of state, who will actually exercise the duties of the office of President. Many paras and lines are unsourced. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/update blurb – per PolarManne. And on quality per Alsor. I think that it is the natural order of succession under the Venezuelan presidential system and inconsequential, at least for now. CoryGlee00:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/ alt two It is, at the moment, a change of leadership in Venezuela. However, there is reports of some kind of fighting outside the presidential Mansion (House? Palace?). Might be of some importance coming soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorriynial (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with current blurb on notability as de facto change in head of state, but oppose on quality as Rodriguez's article is in brutal shape - the "Political career" section contains numerous uncited statements, and one or two around the Mercosur bit where I question their relevancy to the article as a whole. TheKip(contribs)06:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The death toll from the strikes rises to at least 80, including members of security forces and civilians. (The New York Times)
Cuba confirms that 32 of its citizens were killed during the attacks while carrying out missions. Two days of national mourning are declared. (Al Jazeera)
Myanmar's government releases 6,186 prisoners, including 52 foreign nationals, and reduces prison sentences to mark Independence Day, while excluding inmates convicted of serious crimes. (Reuters)
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.
Comment: Article reads like WP:PROSELINE in most sections, and seems a bit too long to comfortably read. These are subjective though, so I won't put in a !vote. Just notes for consideration. --TheRobot Parade18:08, 4 January 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.
Support, though it could be longer. Could anyone add the place of death (if there are sources for it - I haven't found any so far, but I don't speak Latvian)? Khuft (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At least 30 people are killed and others kidnapped by armed bandits in a raid on a village market in Borgu, Niger State, Nigeria. The market was also looted of food before being set on fire. (AP)(The Punch)
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.
Nominator's comments: Austrian-English Holocaust survivor, stepdaughter of Anne Frank's father Otto. Tragic loss. Article appears fully updated and sourced. --TheRobot Parade17:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Support Well-sourced. Article is in fine shape. There are some names with redlinks, but these redlinks don't detract from the overall article quality. Routine post of a PDC Championship every year also seals the deal for a post on ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Whilst it is unusual to post a blurb with just two comments, we are dealing with an article that is rather comprehensive. If only all sports nominations were this good! Schwede6607:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it looks like we put a picture of the most recent event? Surely it would be less clear to outsiders if we picked one arbitrarily. –DMartin08:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ERRORS is the absolutely wrong place for this type of discussion. ERRORS should be for small corrections to blurbs, where there is no need for consensus discussion. This image discussion is appropriate here or WT:ITN Masem (t) 19:06, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Out of process and with the very well sustained opposition below the image of the kidnapping is simply not happening. Gotitbro (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent has always been that the most recent story that has a picture gets the picture, and I think it's not a precedent worth keeping. In this case it's obvious which story is the more important, but it opens us up to a chance for huge arguments in future if there are two competing stories.–DMartin06:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures of Maduro and Littler which were posted were both boring mugshots. The photo of Maduro blindfolded is more interesting. And for Littler, we should have an action photo which shows the sport. See example, (right). Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support without question. This may very well signal the true beginning of a new world order. Prepare yourselves, this is going to be a very bumpy ride. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, Wait until the leading article has been determined and of sufficient quality, but I'm sure this won't be a problem with our quick editors. PrimalMustelid (talk) 07:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC) Support now without question. PrimalMustelid (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously premature nom, wait until there's actually an article at least. We aren't a news ticker, we can wait a few hours for editors to write up something worth reading. BSMRD (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: currently premature. In fact, I can't currently even find an RS supporting the blurb, just reports of explosions. (If there's something I'm missing, please let me know.) Staraction (talk·contribs) 07:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no target article? No references? When do we start topic banning such blatantly poor proposals, like this one from User:PrecariousWorlds? As for the incident itself - we need to know more about it, and what dastardly terrorist organization is behind this. Nfitz (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per all above. There’s barely any RS info out there besides the explosions and low-flying aircraft - nothing on targets, motive, who did it (albeit that can probably be assumed), etc.TheKip(contribs)07:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. CBS has confirmed that this was the US military [3]. Since the original blurb proposal was obviously incomplete and not accurate given the contents of the article, I've proposed a new blurb. Probably good to go within a few hours and as an obviously blurb-level event. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions08:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy support. Although the government has not released a statement yet, it is most likely the result of American strikes. The situation is being covered by many different reliable sources internationally. If the explosions are confirmed to be American, it could lead to something bigger. Even if it wasn't, gunfire and numerous explosions across multiple locations is notable on it's own. There is most likely casualties due to the explosions. EDIT: Not only have the strikes been confirmed by Trump, he also confirmed they captured president Maduro. This is a HUGE breaking news event and a major escalation in the already hightened tensions. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support We don't need to sit around and wait for the US government to put up a big "THIS IS AN INVASION" poster. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...–DMartin08:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the front page news everywhere; and basically obvious that it would be the US military. There are unconfirmed reports that there are ground forces in Caracas but nothing too convincing just yet, current hook is probably fine until we have more info. Juxlos (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The story seems reasonably clear already — US strikes on bases in Venezuela. ITN’s objectives include demonstrating Wikipedia’s dynamic nature and ITN started with the 911 strikes on the US. Readers will be looking to see what we have on this and so we should show them. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support We are too late already. If US involvement has not been reliably confirmed, atleast mention that the explosions happened. This is a grave matter. Kingsacrificer (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support since it has been confirmed by major outlets that US military was behind this attack and not some "terrorist organization". LiamKorda09:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reliable sources, including the BBC, are now confirming the obvious that these are US strikes. It would be silly to wait when even the BBC and CBS are saying it. This is obviously a historic event, and I doubt anyone will disagree with its significance. The only issue was waiting for sources to report it as the US (even if it was obvious the whole time, I recognise the logic behind the 'waits' before), and that has now been resolved. Get it on there!! LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - now being reported that Maduro and his wife have been captured by American forces and removed from Venezuela. This is a no brainer. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Global significance and global coverage. Assuming the reports of Maduro being captured by the US are true, they would be worth including in the blurb. If this intervention escalates into a full-blown war in the coming days inclusion as an Ongoing event may also be appropriate. Oppius Brutus09:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support insofar as it says (for now) that the capture is 'claimed' by Trump, as it has not yet been confirmed as far as I am aware. Then it can be changed if or when proof is given/reputable sources confirm the capture. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I have reverted back to the more conservative headline as from what I can see, the RS talking about the president's capture seem to all be using Trump's Truth Social post as a source. We should probably not be stating it as fact, and if we do mention it, it should be a "claim" of the United States. I welcome other alt wordings. - Fuzheado | Talk09:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's claim is being reported upon, but I haven't seen any source claim to have independently confirmed it, nor have I seen any evidence form the US regime. I think it likely is going to turn out to be true, but there's enough of a chance that it isn't that we should avoid stating it as fact until we know more.–DMartin09:54, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link to Prisoner of War as that seems like a judgement call and not necessarily a fact. I haven't seen that term used in the reporting of this. Occidolophus (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support altblurb The capture of Maduro is the big news here, and has now been confirmed by the Venezuelan Vice President as sourced in the article. We could wait for the press conference I guess, but if we already don't trust the US government accounts then I don't see what would change after they hold a press conference. Occidolophus (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We know he announced it, but there's nothing to say that he directly ordered it (even though there's numerous previous data points that suggest that he likely did). We should not be jumping to this type of speculative conclusion, nor instrumental to how brief we should be in the wording. Let the article discuss all that. Masem (t) 13:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that Donald Trump is behind this because it is an operation orchestrated by US military forces, which is how it can be interpreted indirectly and as the highest military authority he is. ITN works with headlines and avoids unnecessary details that are implied or easily understood once the linked articles are read. The focus here is on Maduro and the operation in Venezuela. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The focus should also be on the person who ordered the illegal kidnapping of the sovereign head of a state in the first place:
Arguing to push Trump here feels like a WP:RGW issue, in this case to put the blame on Trump solely. It is really tempting to want to do that, but this is where we need to stay neutral and stick to the clear, concise facts, that American forces did this operation. Let the article with the room to provide context explain Trump's role. Masem (t) 15:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I would say we erred in not including it. Whether an invasion or not (very well is a limited one in the least), the move is just as illegal and just as driven by singular personalities. Gotitbro (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Much confirmation that this is indeed a full blown invasion of a sovereign state:
BBC is reporting the same. Why are some Americans in this discussion claiming that the USA has not invaded Venezuela? Do they think there government is lying? Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my comment - the implication in the recent press conference is that the USA thinks it is running the country, but there are no boots currently on the ground; with US oil companies taking over the running of the oil industry. Is there even a word in the English language to describe that? Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not an "invasion" in the traditional sense. I would label it as an "external coup", but of course that has very significant political implications/biases. Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please post Altblurb. The capture of Maduro was confirmed by the Venezuelans in charge, who demanded proof of life. That’s the biggest fact. JehochmanTalk12:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't add hearsay to ITN. Either he's been captured or he hasn't. If it hasn't been established that it happened, it's a rumour which should not be added to ITN. If it's been established that it happened, it doesn't need attribution in the form of "the United States says". NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: The United States has posted a picture online of Maduro aboard the USS Iwo Jima, confirming his capture. This has been reported in the Guardian live blog. Can we now remove the attribution in the blurb? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Posting Support Altburb - The reporting of capturing of a president of an entire country, true or not, is a major escalation of tensions and could cause a war to break out. LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support original blurb Oh my god. This is a major escalation and an invasion of a foreign country. However it's not confirmed that Maduro was captured so we should wait on the altblurb. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting comment - is captured the right word? I see reports of Maduro being kidnapped. Capture implies that this is legal, and I see don't see reports of this being legal. Nfitz (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors here likely would agree this was a kidnapping rather than a capture, but this is a situation to avoid RGW, and use the language that is predominate in reliable sources, that being "captured" from what I can tell. We can include on the page how other sources call this illegal or a kidnapping but not at ITN's box. Masem (t) 18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In common law kidnapping is the broader term (abduction is generally limited to children) and I believe that is the case for the English Wikipedia as well. Gotitbro (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RS are all using the term 'captured' and the ITN headline should as well. It's not up to us to determine if this was legal or not. Or if legality is even an appropriate question. Dr Fell (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"capture implies that this is legal". Citation needed on that. To capture means to take into one's possession or control, the law does not need to be involved. Have you heard about the game "capture the flag" Cambalachero (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there is an ongoing discussion at WP:ERRORS over whether Maduro should be titled as "president" or not. The title president was removed currently for now. Natg 19 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So a unilateral removal of a major operative part of a consensus blurb. I think everyone here agrees that the significance here stems from the kidnapping of a sovereign head of state not some random citizen. Gotitbro (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is doubly dangerous. First, the title should not have been preemptively removed. Second, democratically elected or not, fully recognized or not, he had assumed the office of president and was acting accordingly. Dr Fell (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the consensus is to keep/restore the title, yet the title was preemptively removed. Removal of it appears to be a NPOV violation. Nottheking (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzalez almost certainly won the 2024 election. But Maduro was sworn in and retained power. Titles don't reflect democratic legitimacy or the integrity of an election; they only reflect the de facto outcome. Dr Fell (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And the blurb has been restored per consensus and sources. No, we have no interest (and are in no position) in litigating interstate disputes: Maduro was the president for all intents and purposes for this encyclopedia. To imply otherwise is to reduce the magnitude of the blatant illegal agression here. Gotitbro (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a better place for that (once verified by independent sources). The current headline isn't great, but this isn't clarifying detail that might improve it. Dr Fell (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see even more independent verification for the death toll which is now upto 80, this simply should not be brushed under the carpet. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Add Cilia Flores We've been ignoring the other person captured in this operation: Cilia Flores. There's perhaps a sexist assumption that she was just his wife and only along for the ride but the NYT has a good account of her significance: Who Is Cilia Flores, the Power Broker Captured Alongside Maduro?. Here's some key details:
Far more than a first lady, Ms. Flores is one of Venezuela’s most powerful political figures. She built extraordinary influence over decades while largely operating from the shadows. Ms. Flores shaped a judicial system in which nearly every major decision ran through her and embedded state institutions with relatives and loyalists, according to journalists, analysts and former officials. At the same time, they noted, her family amassed vast, unexplained wealth.
Ms. Flores and Mr. Maduro have been partners since at least the late 1990s, when both were lawmakers. They married in 2013, the year he became president. After Mr. Chávez’s death, she was widely seen as critical to consolidating and sustaining Mr. Maduro’s hold on power, bringing a loyal political base and deep institutional influence.
“She is a fundamental figure in corruption in Venezuela — absolutely fundamental — and especially in the structure of power,” said Zair Mundaray, who worked a senior prosecutor under both Mr. Chávez and Mr. Maduro. “Many people consider her far more astute and shrewd than Maduro himself.”
“She has been basically co-governing the country since he came to power, and in many ways is the strategy or power behind the throne,”
From what we’ve known before, she whispers in his ear and has been involved in corruption and trafficking to enrich her own family but is not a more significant power. She’s probably Melania Trump level. Maduro preferred his inner circle. I may be wary of a US source potentially exaggerating to justify their indictment of a nominal civilian, in this instance. Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those are allegations by the kidnappers not sure why these should even figure in the discussion. If you want to argue for notability beyond those justifying their illegal action, please do that but I doubt we have much here as the notability of separately mentioning Maduro (beyond the attack on a sovereign state) stemmed from his position as president but that is not the case for Flores. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Zair Mundaray is not a kidnapper -- he seems to be a respectable Venezuelan lawyer. For some more sources of a similar kind see:
I do not put into serious question whether Flores should be blurbed. What was questioned is trying to pin notability from allegations of criminality and allegations of abuse of position. The notability itself (for mentioning her) can stem from the illegal kidnapping itself and I would let others comments on that. Gotitbro (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever we feature in the blurb, we inevitably present as more important or more interesting than the 80 people that were killed by the US military in Venezuela. That's normal, for the record, but because of this I think your argument doesn't work. We do have to make the editorial decision of whether to include Flores based on our Wikipedia article and available news sources, as per usual. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding Flores – If the US government kidnaps two highly notable figures, there's no reason not to include both of them in the blurb. Moreover, our article on Flores is of fine quality and has been updated a lot over the past few days, making it properly representative of our work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding Flores. Maduro's capture is notable because he was the president of a mrajor Latin American country. Flores doesn't hold such a political position. Recent news articles have almost entirely focused on Maduro. Khuft (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are a lot of moving parts to this story beyond the core headline: the capture of Maduri's wife, the number of guards and civilians killed, and the naming of an interim president, all which if we're individual ITN stories would be posted. We simply don't have room, and thus it is appropriate to keep the headline to the point and a clear target article that talks to each of these points. Masem (t) 19:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support adding Flores The current blurb is pretty sparse (the US "strikes targets in Venezuela"? which targets?) so I don't see any harm in adding a few more factual details. FallingGravity04:07, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An ATR 72-500, overran the runway upon landing at Bhadrapur Airport in Nepal and crashed into a creek. All 55 people on board survived, though 7 people received minor injuries and the aircraft was written off. (MyRepublica)
At least four people are trapped when a multi-story building collapses in Nairobi, Kenya. (AP)
Dozens of people are missing and at least 102 others are rescued after a boat carrying over 200 migrants capsizes off the coast of the North Bank Division of the Gambia. (AP)
The United Kingdomrecords its hottest and sunniest year in 2025 with an average temperature of 10.09 °C (50.16 °F), surpassing the 2022 record of 10.03 °C (50.05 °F). (Business Day)
Greece removes more than 308,000 inactive students from public university records under new education rules that end long-term dormant enrollment, reducing the official student population by almost half. (AP)
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.
Support: Well written and referenced, notable for longevity. In answer to the above comment, maybe it could read "Sir Patrick Duffy" to distinguish him from the actor. Baldwin de Toeni (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article is well-sourced. Article's in good shape for posting. Duffy's longevity is also of interest. I also support his name being read as "Sir Patrick Duffy" to distinguish him from the actor. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:24, 4 January 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.
Nominator's comments: Bangladeshi rhymester and poet known for his children's works. Article was just expanded, so should be fully updated and sourced. --TheRobot Parade16:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? I didn't catch that that was derogatory when I originally updated the page. It seemed like most sources used that term, so I didn't change it during the update. Maybe its a translation issue? Thank you for the fix. --TheRobot Parade23:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At least 17 people are killed and 11 others are injured in flash floods caused by heavy rains and snowfall across Afghanistan. (AP)
Seven people are killed, 96 others are rescued and at least 97 are reported missing when a boat carrying hundreds of migrants capsizes in The Gambia. (Reuters)
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 jockey who was the first woman to run in a pari-mutuel race. Article is fully sourced and well detailed, should be suitable for RD. --TheRobot Parade20:30, 2 January 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.
Nominator's comments: New Zealand director-general of health, the first woman to hold the position. Article is in good shape, well detailed and properly sourced. (Though we may be waiting for an official statement stating if she died on the 1st or not.) --TheRobot Parade03:19, 2 January 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.
Strong oppose - as far as my knowledge goes, we haven't done anything like it. We are not doing things like a recessing economy right now and just because it's "in the news" doesn't make it worthy to be in ongoing. Things like the Covid pandemic made sense because those were worldwide events that affected the entire world drastically. LuxembourgFan42 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As and when this bubble bursts, I think we'll have some business news to post. But tech companies constantly inflating each other's share values with purchases of chipsets as yet unmade, funded by sales as yet unrealised, is more like background noise than news at this point. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Firstly, the AI boom article does not receive enough updates to be posted to Ongoing. Most edits are cosmetic, adding little new material to the article. Even counting these, there are only a few edits a week as opposed to 15+ for the other Ongoing articles, not even counting timelines. There's just not enough going on to warrant posting per WP:ONGOING. Never has an individual AI event ever been posted to ITN, unlike all the others in the list. At the very least there should be a blurb or two before a topic gets put on Ongoing. Notability concerns aside, the article really is far too broad for this current AI boom. It talks about an AI boom (emphasis added), but we need an article about the current AI boom. For such an impactful topic that will no doubt shape the future, I'm shocked we only had 3,000 words to say on this. As LuxembourgFan42 says, this is apar to a recession or such which, while impactful in some ways, should not be posted. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:18, 1 January 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.
How about the date of birth, please? The date "7 September" in the infobox and the intro needs a source, too. Thanks. -- PFHLai (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2026 (UTC) BTW, the single-sentence intro could be longer. {{lead too short}} applies. --PFHLai (talk) 12:21, 3 January 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.
Your disdain for his nation is not a reason to oppose this posting. However, the fact that the article is partly unsourced and has almost no prose is. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support very significant story. I've had two push notifications in the UK about it from the BBC even though there are currently no known British nationals involved, indicating the significance with which it's being treated. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 10:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly significant and gaining a lot of coverage around the world. Article looks good and is sufficient for ITN as is. That said, would it not be more accurate for the blurb to say 'explosion and fire' or just 'fire' in lieu of 'explosion' alone? Given the police are currently referring to it as a "fire of undetermined origin", and many sources are describing it simply as a 'fire' rather than an explosion, attributing the deaths to the explosion itself (and not the resulting fire) feels premature at this stage given investigations are still underway. Oppius Brutus11:02, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Post-posting support Major number of fatalities, widespread international coverage, and the article, albeit short, surpasses minimum standards. FlipandFlopped㋡13:43, 1 January 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: A major Gospel composer, known for compositions like “Total Praise,” “Center of my Joy,” and “I Love the Lord,” his music was a mainstay in the Black church and in Gospel music in general. He has eight Grammy nominations, and multiple Dove and Stellar Awards over five decades of a career. He was inducted to the GMA Gospel Hall of Fame and won a Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award from President Joe Biden. I am open to a blurb if consensus develops. TenorTwelve (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurb, weak oppose RD He was definitely a successful gospel singer, but I am not seeing widespread coverage to the effect that he was a transformative figure or household name. In terms of quality for RD, the article is almost ready but not quite - the NAACP Awards and Stellar Awards sections are not adequately cited. The discography section also would be better as an album table. Discography does not have footnotes, but the main article which it summarizes, Richard Smallwood discography, has full sourcing, so it would be an easy fix. FlipandFlopped㋡19:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Five people are killed while others escape after the United States conducts airstrikes on three alleged drug boats at an undisclosed location. (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.
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: Native American forensic artist, death announced on the 31st. Just did a major clean-up of references, should be RD quality at this point. --TheRobot Parade19:10, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Article needs updating Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
But anyways I do support once it's 2026 in Bulgaria due to the massive economic impact of this change in Bulgaria and the precedent of Croatia (20), Lithuania (19), and Latvia (18). This has been posted with ITNR-level regularity and I see no reason why we should deviate here. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability once the time in Bulgaria hits midnight and the article is updated, which will be in short order. I understand the rationale for the wait !votes above, but I think it was reasonable for the nominator to submit this early in order to get the ball rolling on a consensus. FlipandFlopped㋡16:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder whether the Bulgarian soothsayer Baba Vanga herself had predicted on her own country of birth adapting Euro. The article looks good and it is really important to post it since that could have ripple effects in European economy. Damn, the discussion is interesting with the timing of this news update since this is coming on New Year's eve. Abishe (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but the Linguistic issues section stands out for lacking sources at the moment. A closing admin can read this as a support when that is fixed. CMD (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Needs work The article has unresolved cleanup tags including an orange one. It also needs copy-editing to resolve tense issues now that planning is past and implemented. Coverage such as this indicates that the switch is still controversial with a background of political instability and the article doesn't seem to do enough to explain this. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Information is scarce as this was only discovered two days ago. I also don't speak German well so there may be German-language sources I am perhaps missing. However I will try to improve it in the coming days. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:03, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The widely cited number of 30 mn Euro is not really correct - no-one currently knows the value of the stolen goods as the bank didn't have insights into what their clients deposited in their safe deposits. The 30 mn euro are rather extrapolated from the insurance value for each individual safe deposit - around 10.000 EUR. The article explains this, but the blurb as written is a bit misleading. Khuft (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose albeit a reluctant one. These things do capture the popular imagination, the obvious comparion is to the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary which became the subject of both several documentaries and dramatisation. If you look at our article though it is fairly threadbare - it doesn't even have the iconic hole in the wall photo. I can't see this one panning out differently. The very nature of an event like this is that it starts with a mystery and details emerge slowly over the course of the investigation. This is the point DMartin makes above but I draw the opposite inference - if there is a lack of detail that does not justify highlighting our non-coverage of the subject. I'd love to be proved wrong here and the article gets fully fleshed out in a timescale we can post it, but I just can't see it happening. 3142 (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 3142. The article is very sparse. Comparing it to the 2025 Louvre heist, at a similar time after the theft was discovered, it is about half the length. Partially this is because the Louvre heist involved items on public display so what was stolen was almost immediately reported. Maybe we will get more reporting in the next couple of days and this can be expanded. ~2025-39726-97 (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2025 (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.
Nominator's comments: German politician, state minister of culture in Hesse, active locally in Darmstadt and in federal politics, promoting autonomy of universities, music festival, art institutions and the day of open monuments. Had only a stub of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 5 January 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.
Nominator's comments: German all-round-musician, composing (many songs setting poems), playing piano in long-term chamber music collaborations, making recordings, teaching, writing, conducting. I translated the article in 2010. References needed update, and detail was added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the Teaching section has no footnotes. Not sure if the materials belongs to this section on his teaching activities. --PFHLai (talk) 13:40, 5 January 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.
Oppose Unfortunately, this article has the shortcoming which is common of many actors nominated for RD - the filmography section is unsourced. FlipandFlopped㋡14:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been working on it, though I’d agree that the article is not yet quality. What are the options on fixing it; do I remove roles I can’t find a source for? And what do I do if a source only says he was in it, not what year and not what he was credited as. 1brianm7 (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@1brianm7: TV Guide typically lists credits for the actor, and then you can navigate to the pages for each individual work to cite the year and the role. Some roles might be too minor to be listed in the work page, but you can usually find another source for those. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipandflopped and QuicoleJR: I have referenced the entire article and filmography section, commenting out anything I couldn't find a source for. I hope it wouldn't be too much of a bother to look the article over again and see it has any outstanding flaws. 1brianm7 (talk) 10:29, 5 January 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.
Support Prominent figure in the news and related to a prominent American political family. Article also looks good. Suggest using a different source though. Aaron.Reber13 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITNRD, comments should focus on the quality of the article, not the subject's importance, as everyone with a Wikipedia article is considered important enough to post on RD. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is very proselineish and has a very bang-bang here's a fact, here's a fact feel. I'm not going to go as far to oppose on that basis but I would seriously question if we want to highlight such articles as amongst the best of our content. 3142 (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ITN highlights topics which are in the news. It's TFA which tries to present the best of our content. But, in any case, the article is currently graded B-class which is better than average and it looks ok to me. I read through it just now and didn't see anything that stood out as proseline rather than just a normal chronological account of her life. Please provide an example, so that we may understand your objection better. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last two paragraphd of prose have three sentences that use the the "on Date, this happened" structure, which is getting towards prosrline. But for an RD we are next expecting perfect prose, just that is understandable and meets all content policies, so it's fine as is. Masem (t) 16:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those paragraphs are about her marriage and fatal disease. Giving the key dates for the major milestones in those life events seems quite conventional. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are other elements to proseline than dates, those are a easily and definitively measured score but sequences of single unconnected sentences also fit. You only need to look at the article to see way too many one and two line paragraphs; this does not read as an article explaining the subject and developing its points but a collection of random trivia. 3142 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current revision of the article I am withdrawing that concern now. It has developed into something a little more substantial and gives a better impression of presenting a sumamry of her life. Compare [6] and [7]. 3142 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 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.
Note: Forgot to mention this, but I couldn't find a reliable source for the birthdate, beyond a scummy public records site. Help is appreciated to find and source the information. --TheRobot Parade18:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipandflopped: found a ref! Thank you, The Times! Article now has a sourced birthdate. And, to answer your question, usually it's expected that if an article provides a date of birth, it needs to be sourced in order for it to be posted to RD. --TheRobot Parade21:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Flipandflopped, no, a bio does not need to have a date of birth. The birthdate is often not known. If it does have a date of birth, it must be referenced for a recent death as WP:BLP applies for people who have recently died; see WP:BDP. Schwede6607:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst marked as "ready", I cannot see that we have consensus to post this. Opinions are quite evenly divided whether this meets ITN criteria. Schwede6604:27, 6 January 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.
Denmark's iconic post boxes are being taken down and sold off
Article:Post Danmark (talk·history·tag) Blurb: Post Danmark discontinues mail service, making Denmark the first country to do so. (Post) Alternative blurb: Post Danmark, which was founded over 400 years ago in 1624, ceases its delivery of letters in Denmark. News source(s):PostNord, CNN, NYT Credits:
Oppose on quality and notability - first off, the update is way too short, to what's already too short of a target article. Second, it's a little misleading - Post Danmark is only discontinuing mail services, not all postal services entirely, as they're shifting focus to parcel (package) deliveries instead. On top of that, letter service isn't being discontinued nationwide, as Post Danmark is handing it over to Dansk Avis Omdeling instead. TheKip(contribs)09:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is first. It is widely covered in media outside Denmark. The story brings some nice variety, which is a nice bonus. Rolluik (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes this is a first but doubtless the first of many just as telegrams no longer exist. Update is a little thin but meets the five sentence minimum that used to be widely quoted so I don't see that as a bar here. 3142 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the caption ("Denmark's iconic post boxes are being taken down and sold off") and don't get the objection either. Per the NYT article, The disappearance of the mailboxes is “what actually made people emotional,”Andrew🐉(talk) 08:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with similar conditions as The Kip. The article has hardly any more information than the blurb and it doesn't seem that this is really a significant change since there will still be government-contracted letter carriers. At best this is an internal policy change by Post Danmark. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree it should be posted even with the updated blurb. The article is still undeveloped and the change from public to private letter carrying is no more important than any other government privatization. — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trivial. Privatization as such is insignificant, if it was indeed doing away with postals that would be notable but it isn't. Gotitbro (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an unique event. Not merely a privatisation, but an end to mail service. Though a private company will start delviering mail, it's doing so independently.–DMartin07:13, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose By Danish law people must be able to send letters; if the private company taking over from Post Danmark should fail, the government will be required to provide an alternative. I think the "news" angle here is the symbolic removal of mail boxes, rather than the actual transfer of business. Black Kite (talk)10:49, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personal opinions about whether this is important are not relevant. The government ending state-run mail service is receiving widespread international coverage and is being reported on as a significant and important event by global news sources. That is the metric for gauging significance, not subjective beliefs of individual editors about mail privatization being "trivial". ITN needs to go by at least some sort of objective assessment criteria, and a lot of oppose !votes aren't even attempting to cite to any. FlipandFlopped㋡15:57, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have already voted in support but to get a consensus, the blurb could be focused more on the removal of the postbusses nationwide. Paying someone to bring around a piece of paper will obviously be possible as long as boxes will be delivered. Rolluik (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing is that national postal authority ceases mail delivery rather than ability to send mail itself. With that in mind, Denmark appears to be the first country where national postal authority no longer sends mail. Both proposed blurbs reflect this. Brandmeistertalk18:28, 1 January 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.
Oppose RD, several unsourced statements. Oppose blurb nothing in the article suggestions how she was a major figure. Simply being the former head of state or exec of a country is not sufficient for this. --03:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
Per the standing ITN consensus on Recent deaths, any subject with a Wikipedia article is presumed suitable for RD, with discussion limited to article quality, not notability. The claim that “simply being the former head of state or exec is not sufficient” is therefore irrelevant to RD and contradicts long-standing practice.Tausheef Hassan (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD as article is there quality-wise. Oppose blurb for now - I'm seeing a lot in the article on why she was an important figure in Bangladesh's history, but not seeing quite enough on how she was truly transformative/had a wide-reaching impact. TheKip(contribs)05:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her last tenure ended in late 2006, when internet access in Bangladesh was still limited. Much of her broader political impact is therefore discussed in books, academic works, and retrospective analyses rather than easily available online sources. As a result, the article may not fully reflect her long-term and wide-reaching impact despite her well-established role in Bangladesh’s history. Tausheef Hassan (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then editor's should cite those offline sources in the article and establish the legacy therein. We cannot speculate on notability otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With her death, this type of content in the short term may be found in obituaries about her, if such information exists. Masem (t) 12:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Blurb Obviously insufficient impact or notability to justify a blurb. And limited interest to readers, as well. Article is improving but not yet ready for an RD. Dr Fell (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in overnight page view stats tomorrow. Bangladesh is not a sparsely populated country. Yes, there are miniscule number of white people but... Howard the Duck (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a strong believer in free expression, it would be hypocritical were I to suggest you should not be free to make racialist comments. However, I observe that you frequently employ a racialist lens to assess a topic or hedge an argument. Dr Fell (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why, if we are going to blurb this, there needs to be discussion of why she was considered a major figure (even if not from Western sources) so we can show why she is someone important any reader should be aware of. That's just not yet demonstrated. Masem (t) 17:58, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blurb worthiness here should also factor into account that she would've potentially been a candidate in the upcoming elections in the country were it not for this death. Gotitbro (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't running as leader of the party nor she was she likely to have been PM in the event of a BNP majority. It's a leap to say the election was "the most significant [...] in the country's history." But that aside, the impact may be clear and visible, but it's local and globally insignificant. Even the Guardian isn't inflating the import of her life and death. Dr Fell (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb on principle prime minister of Bangladesh for ten years, leader of the opposition for ten years, leader of one of Bangladesh's most important political parties for 41 years, and may or may not have been a political prisoner for six of those years depending on whether or not you view her corruption charges as legitimate or not, and freed from prison by a political revolution in 2024 and subsequently acquitted of those corruption charges, then was actively campaigning in the present election that will take place in February 2026 as the leader of the leading party in election polling. No matter how you spin it, this lady was one of the most important politicians in Bangladesh for a period of at least thirty years up to the present, and her death removes the leading candidate for the prime minister in an active election campaign (see 2026 Bangladeshi general election). She clearly meets the standard for a politician death blurb. (Also, if you're confused as to why she's not listed as the leader, notice that her son became the leader of the party upon the date of her passing, and Wikipedia has already updated all relevant pages.) NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose blurb for the usual reasons, per WP:NEWSEVENT. We cannot be posting to ITN every time an elderly person who used to be famous dies. We have recent deaths for a reason.–DMartin06:10, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Khaleda Zia, the second female Prime Minister in the Muslim world, was the most significant political figure in Bangladesh at the time of her death. A one-day general holiday and three days of state mourning have been declared in Bangladesh following her passing. ≈ MS Sakib «TalK»07:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not comparable. Hasina was posted as resigning from office (ITNR), and Hadi's was posted due to being an unusual death/death as the story (due to the violence that erupted after it). This is major figured death and needs to be considered in that light if she was a major figure. Masem (t) 12:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All three were leaders of political organisations in Bangladesh and death-is-the-story to some extent in every case (Sheikh Hasina's death sentence is still pending). As a three-term PM and pioneer of female leadership, Zia seems quite as significant as the other two. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"seemed" means it's original research. We need to have sourced discussion to say if her term was considered impactful. Masem (t) 15:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb: Too notable to be a RD, Bangladesh's first Female PM and lead them to top world Corruption Index. also a former leader of BNP, a major opposition party especial given the currently unstable situation. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb, per 4-RAZ, also played a leading role in opposition to Hasina. Worth noting Bangladesh has a population of 170 million, not a small country. There are 13 CNs, so oppose on quality for now Kowal2701 (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb. Significant political figure in Bangladesh, one of the "two begums" that dominated the political landscape of that country for decades. Article looks fine to me. Khuft (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb quite notable – first female pm of Bangladesh and second female pm of the Muslim World, internationally pro-democracy leader, death well reported internationally. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support blurb It does appear that she was a transformative PM in Bangladesh's history perhaps in South Asia however the article should have a legacy section and properly describe her impact more thoroughly. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stress that a read through the article as it is right now gives zero impression of why she was a transformative figure, you have to make your own leaps of logic to get there. Thats not acceptable for a blurb. Masem (t) 05:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look. The article was tag-bombed in a drive-by way by the nominator who seems unlikely to do more. This seemed to be purely mechanical rather than being based on actual controversy. On the talk page, the only significant issue seems to be a query about her birth date and this is actually controversial. But there's a detailed section about that and that does have lots of citations.
I've looked at a couple of {{cn}} but they are not as easy to fix as rote filmography issues. I've added a biography as a general reference but don't currently have good access to it.
Does this matter? Readers who are interested in the topic are reading it regardless but the overall total is middling as these things go -- about quarter of a million recently.
So, what's needed is an editor who is sufficiently familiar with the topic and sources to be able to resolve this in a scholarly way. At the moment we're not crediting any updaters at all but I'll start that now. @Ahammed Saad, Kelisi, and Rushtheeditor:
Quality is required for any featured link on the main page. Lack of sourcing on a BLP is a huge problem, as BLPs are supposed to be meticulously sourced to avoid violating WP:BLP. Masem (t) 12:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the cleanup tags have been resolved now and there don't seem to be any significant editing disputes or talk page discussions. Overall, it is graded B-class which better than average and so it's good to go. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on quality Apart from the cn tags, there is some really odd writing ("From then on, the hiding began. From this house to that house, some were unable to give place to 'Begum' for fear of persecution.") and some sentences are meaningless to anyone without knowledge of the subject ("On 15 January 2025, Zia was acquitted in the orphanage trust graft case."). I've re-written parts of the lead to remove grammatical and poor English issues, but don't have time to look at the rest at the moment. Black Kite (talk)10:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I've nominated the infobox photo for deletion. It didn't pass the smell test and I've now had time to write a deletion rationale; otherwise, I would have long used this image. Schwede6601:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comments: I think its time to remove this (along with timeline and genocide) from the ongoing section as its not really a big enough ongoing event at this point. The October ceasefire is largely holding and all the recent timeline entries have been individual strikes in Lebanon. We’ve given it enough time that at this points any major flare-ups would have a fair case for being their own thing.
Support While there may be events still happening in the Gaza conflict, ongoing is meant for events where there is non-routine coverage of the events in the media on a near-daily basis, and that there are appropriate updates reflecting those reports in an appropriate article or subarticle (the timeline here). Gaza fails the media test, as while there may be still things being done by Israel, they do not regularly make news on the near-daily basis. Masem (t) 01:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support because, like Masem said, the coverage is not still at a high enough level to warrant an Ongoing entry. We can always add it back if things heat up. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the ceasefire is holding. Limited attacks are always constant in the Israel-Gaza relationship. The current war is very clearly at least on pause. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Masem - looking at the timeline article, it appears there's only been a small handful of notable incidents over the last month, and the majority of updates to the timeline in recent weeks seem to be about Israeli attacks/strikes in Lebanon rather than in Gaza. Media overage has also slipped considerably. We can always re-add if things flare up again and/or the ceasefire collapses. TheKip(contribs)05:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ceasefire is holding despite continued dribs and drabs of violence by both sides. The larger conflict has been ongoing for over 75 years, and ongoing events should be viewed as part of it. This most recent flare-up is over. Dr Fell (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose but mainly because there is still some coverage and there is no clear line for how low coverage has to be to remove something from ongoing, with the fact that as per Sky News UK, Israel keeps on moving the borders and is still doing its usual atrocities (not that Hamas has stopped or anything) being another factor. (redacted due to how this could be easily misinterpreted as casting aspersions) As an aside, it's odd how four of the support votes all use the exact same word, "holding", to describe the ceasefire, but it could be my relative lack of exposure to global news that makes me think the use of that word repeatedly is strange.Tube·of·Light06:40, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 'war' is really a battle in the war that has been waged since 1948. The 'war' is over; the war continues. And given that the war continues, one expects skirmishes. These don't justify the maintaining the ongoing item. On 'holding' – can you elaborate? Are you making an allegation? Dr Fell (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intending to make an allegation, just an observation, but I now see how it could have been perceived as implying some coordinated activity and I didn't think about that before posting. I am striking that out, sorry. Tube·of·Light08:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the timeline article is been updated practically in a daily basis (last entries are from 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 26 of December). Alexcalamaro (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just having the timeline updated isn't sufficient. Most of the non-gnoming updates to that are just political speech or very small scale incidents (or the stuff in Lebanon, which should not be mixed in with the Gaza conflict). Just because stories pop up in the news about Gaza doesn't mean its stories that we would have otherwise posted if we didn't have ongoing. Compare to the events in Ukraine where daily coverage of fighting is still widely covered. Masem (t) 12:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the article is being updated daily, Gaza is still in the news daily across the globe and the ceasefire has only de jure halted (not even ended) the war, the fact of the matter is Gaza is still very much besieged and under occupation with multiple rising casualties, and besides there are talks of resuming the war officially by Israel regardless given that Hamas is still operating. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Last time this was proposed I voted against it. However, the news has gone on and few major updates have occurred outside of the meandering peace process. The ceasefire is (mostly) doing its job, and the occasional flare-up receives much less coverage than the other events going on in the world currently. Every so often there's a shootout in the West Bank or a little skirmish somewhere but that is part of the greater Arab–Israeli conflict and the war itself is no longer frequently in the news (WP:ONGOING). It is time to take it off. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Masem and all above. Even if some fighting remains ongoing, the metric is whether the article is receiving significant updates and whether there is consistent, non-routine global coverage. That is no longer the case. FlipandFlopped㋡16:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gaza continues to appear on the front pages of most major news outlets. Although overall coverage has declined, it has not dropped to a level that would justify removal from the ongoing section. The international community remains actively engaged, and new developments are emerging on an almost daily basis. Ceasefire violations continue to be reported. While “fighting and fatalities” are not, by themselves, decisive criteria for inclusion in ongoing events, they remain relevant here, particularly given the sustained and consistent coverage of civilian deaths in this case The AP (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's the holdup here, especially with the ski resort incident being quickly posted but this ongoing event not being removed? Long since the egregious ceasefire violations, the Gaza War news has been more quiet nowadays and thus no longer as frequently features in the news. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support I proposed this a month ago, and things are even quieter by now. As for the opposes, I will quote myself: "Many people ae likely to reply 'Wait, [Israel]/[Hamas] did something bad to some [Arab]/[Israeli], this has not ended'. That's the underlying Arab–Israeli conflict, that existed since many decades ago and will continue after this war. The ongoing is not about it, but about a specific military conflict. Claims that this is still ongoing should point warfare-related news, not just basic Arab-Israeli conflicts" Cambalachero (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Coverage comes from multiple reputable sources (AP, BBC, CNN, WSJ). The unrest has spread to several major cities, and there are initial reports of security forces opening fire on protesters. The demonstrations are already notable as the largest in Iran since the Mahsa Amini protests in 2022. In my opinion, this makes it relevant for In the news, even if the full scale and impact is still unknown. Razgura (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now waiting for major events, if they occur, since for now they are just protests like there are in so many other places. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment major COATRACK issue on the article by including Trump's rambling statement on the situation. This is one of the major problems with reaction sections, though here that's the only reaction that's not needed. Masem (t) 12:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reasons I've opposed the Trump protests. What's good for the goose is good for the gander right? The Trump protests made some noise, but so what? Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can compare this to the Trump protests. We knew in advance that the Trump protests would make some noise and nothing else. In the case of Iran, the protests could be the start of a revolution, that if supported by outside forces, could lead to the fall of the regime. Tradediatalk12:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm applying the same rules to the Trump protests. So far "a lot of noise was made" and nothing else. No major leader has resigned. If a government changes, then fine. Post it. We are not fortune tellers, and shouldn't post stories because it could result in major developments. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is time to blurb this as it is expanding. We have today headlines like: In Iran, the protest movement against inflation is gaining momentum, FRANCE 24. Also: Iran crisis deepens - protests spread with chants of “death to the dictator”, BBC News. Also: Iran: Protests expand beyond the economy, DW News. Also: Iran protests spread to students on third day, FRANCE 24 English. Also: Iran in Crisis: Protests, Economic Collapse, and Khamenei’s Struggle to Hold Power, The Indian Express, etc. Tradediatalk12:33, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt I agree with Tradedia and Razgura that there is increasing global coverage of this and it therefore passes the bar. However, I prefer the alt, as it is more neutral and concise. FlipandFlopped㋡16:04, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose this is the 3rd nonsensical colored revolution update and history proved it to be a nothing burger. if it is worth anything, can re-visit.Psephguru (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a bit hesitant for the first few days (I could've put a wait vote earlier but whatever), but this is the largest protest wave since 2022 and is unusually started by the bazaar merchant class. In addition, it is getting a whole lot of mainstream media coverage. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renamed to 2025–2026 Iranian protests because Iran is in 2026. Seems to be attracting more and more international media attention and growing as an event: Al Monitor 31 Dec - 10 universities joined in a government building in Southern Teheran was attacked. Wikipedia editing is active, and the quality is reasonable. Boud (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per Razgura and Tradedia. Significant coverage worldwide and the scale/casualties of the protests are increasing each day. Oppius Brutus11:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Altblurb II seems unwise: it focuses on deaths rather than the actual reasons for the protests; and the current death count of four protestors and zero security forces is complicated because of the authorities' attempt to convince the media and the family to claim that one of the dead protestors was a Basij member. Also, we don't want to have pressure to update the death count in the blurb each time the sources support increasing it. Best have a blurb that is reasonably like to remain accurate for as long as the blurb remains posted. Boud (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And "4" has now become "7" (named, sourced) protestors and zero security forces per 2025–2026 Iranian protests#Summary table, among which one protestor's family is under pressure to say that he's a Basij. Unfortunately, this may change again several times prior to posting and during the time on the main page. Let people edit/update that at the article + talk page there, not on ITN. Boud (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that Alt I is best - the fall of the rial and market instability are part of economic conditions, so the original blurb has superfluous details. Boud (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are not-yet-Wikipedia-RS hints that a tipping point has been passed. Anyone fluent in Persian would be welcome to discuss at the talk page (and obtain consensus to show that I'm wrong). A new related ITN might come up soon. Boud (talk) 01:13, 2 January 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
.jpg/120px-Nicolas_Maduro_on_board_the_USS_Iwo_Jima_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.svg/40px-Flag_of_Canada_(Pantone).svg.png){kind=small}
(January 1 2025, 3:55 AM ET)
Posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
Removed – Schwede66 00:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
