Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates
| Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here. |
This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.
This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.
view — page history — related changes — edit |
Glossary[edit]
All articles 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. Nomination steps[edit]
The better your article's quality, the better it covers the event and the wider its perceived significance (see WP:ITNSIGNIF for details), the better your chances of getting the blurb posted.
Headers[edit]
Voicing an opinion on an item[edit]Format your comment to contain "support" or "oppose", and include a rationale for your choice. In particular, address the notability of the event, the quality of the article, and whether it has been updated. Please do...[edit]
Please do not...[edit]
Suggesting updates[edit]There are two places where you can request corrections to posted items:
|
Structure
[edit]This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. Eight days of current nominations are maintained – older days are archived.
To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.
February 9
[edit]|
February 9, 2026 (Monday)
|
February 8
[edit]|
February 8, 2026 (Sunday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Portuguese presidential election
[edit]Blurb: António José Seguro (pictured) is elected as the president of Portugal. (Post)
Alternative blurb: António José Seguro (pictured) of the Socialist Party wins the 2026 runoff election for president of Portugal.
News source(s): PR '26
Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Tuesp1985 (talk · give credit) and H3nrique Bregie (talk · give credit)
Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support ITN/R. Scuba 21:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- As ITNR votes should focus on quality. Just being ITNR doesn't mean it's automatically postable. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not ITNR, per List of current heads of state and government. Portugal is a semi-presidential country in constitutional terms, but in practice and by custom it is purely parliamentary. Results sections needs update and an Aftermath/Reaction section is needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support once updated Per Alsor above, the results prose needs to be updated for the second round and a reaction section is also needed. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
2026 Thai general election
[edit]Blurb: Incumbent prime minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pictured) and his Bhumjaithai Party win the 2026 Thai general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: In the Thai general election, the Bhumjaithai Party, led by Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul (pictured), wins the most seats.
News source(s): [1] [2] [3]
Credits:
- Nominated by Scu ba (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Preime TH (talk · give credit) and CastleFort1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Thai election is ITN/R. The results have come in and media around the world is reporting on it, but the article needs to be updated. Scuba 17:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait until the PM is officially appointed Even though Anutin is most likely to lead a coalition, he is not holding absolute majority yet (as his party's seat counts is not over 50%), so I think we should wait until he was named official PM just in case the messy situation like the 2023 Thai general election happens again. NotKringe (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The blurbs back then were:
- (May 2023) In the Thai general election, an anti-military-junta coalition led by the Move Forward Party (leader Pita Limjaroenrat pictured) wins a majority in the House of Representatives.[4]
- (Aug 23) Srettha Thavisin (pictured) becomes prime minister of Thailand.[5]
- —Bagumba (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The blurbs back then were:
- Comment There's no need to wait for a PM appointment. A blurb on the election result can be posted once the header of the article is updated. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly. If a new Prime Minister other than the election winner is appointed, then there could indeed be a second blurb. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support I updated the article by adding the election result to the header and by expanding the results prose. The article appears good to go for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: David J. Farber
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [6]
Credits:
- Nominated by Schoen (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Bell Labs researcher, "Grandfather of the Internet" engineering professor and academic computer scientist who taught several Internet technical pioneers throughout the infancy of the Internet. Created SNOBOL language and served on many Internet organizations' boards. Schoen (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose article is orange tagged. Scuba 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
2026 Japanese general election
[edit]Blurb: Incumbent prime minister Sanae Takaichi (pictured) and her Liberal Democratic Party win a supermajority in the 2026 Japanese general election (Post)
Alternative blurb: Incumbent Japanese prime minister Sanae Takaichi (pictured) and her Liberal Democratic Party is re-elected with a landslide majority.
News source(s): Al Jazeera, AP, NBC, Reuters (sources which use the term 'supermajority')
Credits:
- Nominated by Scu ba (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Japanese election is ITN/R Scuba 15:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The article would benefit by including reliable sources that use the term
"supermajority"
, as there are varying definitions. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)- hi yes this Reuters live articlehas an entry titled: Japan: Ruling coalition has now officially won a supermajority, as does this Al Jazeera article Scuba 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- These sources should be added to the article then; currently the use of "supermajority" is unsourced. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- hi yes this Reuters live articlehas an entry titled: Japan: Ruling coalition has now officially won a supermajority, as does this Al Jazeera article Scuba 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose I missed this nom by perhaps 30 seconds, oh well. But it is not ready to post yet. It needs information on the results. (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Chorchapu (talk | edits) 15:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment From someone who is actively working on this article - it may be prudent to wait a bit until the vote counting is mostly done. The ruling coalition currently has a supermajority (two-thirds), however the LDP is very close to outright winning a supermajority on its own. If we wait a bit longer we can accurately specify in the blurb that it is the LDP itself that won an outright supermajority. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: It is now confirmed that the LDP has won an outright supermajority. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Second update: It is now also confirmed that the total LDP-JIP coalition won three-fourths of the House of Representatives. CastleFort1 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: It is now confirmed that the LDP has won an outright supermajority. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when results expanded This nomination will receive my automatic support as soon as the results prose and tables are expanded and clarified upon. CastleFort1 (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Change to support The results prose and tables are now there. I now support this nomination. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support: Historic victory for the LDP. Election is being covered in global news. Results tables in article are good to go. MidnightMayhem (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. NHK also reported a 2/3 majority.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
(Removed) Iranian protests (remove from ongoing)
[edit]Nominator's comments: According to the article the last significant protest was in mid-January, it is misleading to have this article remain in the "ongoing" section - Dumelow (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The protests are effectively over after the crackdown/massacres. What we have now is the aftermath of them and Trump threats to attack Iran not the protests. Gotitbro (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support – The protests have long been suppressed and over. Keeping it in ongoing is an obvious POV decision. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Iran is still a hotbed with the potential Israel/US attacks that have been abuzz. Even if the protests were the catalysts for these attacks as a way to threaten the current leadership, I would now expect that if the attacks were to happen, that would be a wholly separate article now, and as others have said, whatever protests have happened appeared to have been quelled. Masem (t) 13:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- support the hat-trick of events are put down.Psephguru (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal for the same reasons as when this was discussed last week. Protests have been suppressed since mid-January. Yes, Iran is still making headlines, but due to uranium negotiations, not these protests. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Remove. Agreed, the events have moved on. Modest Genius talk 15:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support As I mentioned in the last removal nom, the protests themselves effectively ended mid-January, and what's currently ongoing is the Reactions to the 2025–2026 Iranian protests. FallingGravity 16:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support protests have been over for weeks, current content is just reactions to them being crushed. Scuba 16:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal as per the last 2 times this was proposed. Protests are over. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support removal—I think we can now say that this story has become stale. If protests reignite (which, you never know, they may), then we can always re-add it to the main page as necessary. For now, it's run its course. Kurtis (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support They are no longer Ongoing and therefore should not be listed as such. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Removed Stephen 20:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Winter Olympics (temporary Ongoing removal)
[edit]Nominator's comments: The Ongoing section is currently extremely crowded, and it doesn't really make sense to have it there at the same time as a blurb for the opening ceremony. We can add it back once the opening blurb rolls off. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It shouldn't been added until the Olympics blurb rolls off. Masem (t) 03:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Question/weak oppose Has it been our precedent to add the olympics to ongoing only after the blurb rolls off? These winter olympics only last for two more weeks. Depending on how slow the next two news weeks are, it might not roll off at all. Unless there is a clear rule to the contrary, in these special circumstances, I might lean towards having the blurb and ongoing entry simultaneously. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 05:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, precedent for ongoing in general is to not have them when a related blurb is up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- There’s some kind of a precedent from the last few Olympic Games. In the past, it was posted to ongoing alongside the blurb (this was a common practice even before ongoing had been introduced). However, the recent precedent isn’t a strict rule and can be safely disregarded for the good of our readers (even if it’s a rule, we have WP:IAR). --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, precedent for ongoing in general is to not have them when a related blurb is up. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Sometimes we don’t post enough stories, so blurbs don’t roll off in a two-week span. Furthermore, it’s a very unwise decision to post it to ongoing at a random time because our readers aren’t aware at all that we have to wait until the blurb rolls off. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Readers would be looking for the word "Olympics", and adding the ongoing once the blurb rolls off would just be a standard practice by the admin that pushes the blurb off, so the word would still be there. This doesn't hamper the reader's ability to find it. Masem (t) 13:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- As a reader, not an editor, I prefer getting to Chronological summary of the 2026 Winter Olympics with a single click. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Readers would be looking for the word "Olympics", and adding the ongoing once the blurb rolls off would just be a standard practice by the admin that pushes the blurb off, so the word would still be there. This doesn't hamper the reader's ability to find it. Masem (t) 13:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The winter Olympics is getting a lot more attention than anything else at ITN but it's the very first link in ITN and so repeating it further down too seems redundant. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - The solution is to remove Iran protests and Russo-Ukraine war, but that would mean the Europeans here have to suppress their chauvinism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- hey buddy the war in Ukraine is still going on. Scuba 16:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- there are many ongoing wars. surely that is not the criteria. there is a genocide and war that is ongoing in Palestine --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- ? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- What does Iran have to do with European chauvinism? Personisinsterest (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- everything! let me tell you a story about a man named Mohammad --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- hey buddy the war in Ukraine is still going on. Scuba 16:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait The Olympics blurb will easily be pushed downwards due to election blurbs. There are three national elections on 8 February, which may be posted within the next one or two days. CastleFort1 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- We also have the ITNR Super Bowl today Masem (t) 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I suppose that makes four incoming blurbs, which will push the Olympics blurb off ITN. CastleFort1 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- We also have the ITNR Super Bowl today Masem (t) 17:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support per Andrew. FallingGravity 16:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurb should roll off soon and ongoing can be cleaned up with removal of stale items. Linking to the timeline in ongoing is more useful to readers following the games than the link to opening ceremony. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose having both a blurb and an ongoing is fine and more helpful to the reader. Natg 19 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait and keep imminent posting of election ITN/r blurbs would push opening ceremony blurb anyways.
- Omnifalcon (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose removal per Omnifalcon. ITN/R and other backlogged blurbs will be pushing the ceremony blurb off soon. If we want to free up space, "Iranian protests" can (finally) be removed from Ongoing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - seems a bit unnecessary and bureaucratic (though I don't know what policy supports this). Ongoing "blurbs" should be briefer thougy. Support simply changing this to "Olympics" and remove the timeline. Nfitz (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose/Keep - It makes sense now to keep it, because the opening blurb is going to fall off quickly with the Japanese & Thai elections and very likely the Super Bowl blurbs. 20:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
February 7
[edit]|
February 7, 2026 (Saturday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
Haitian presidential transition council fails
[edit]Article: Transitional Presidential Council (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: The Transitional Presidential Council of Haiti dissolves without a successor. (Post)
Alternative blurb: The Transitional Presidential Council of Haiti dissolves, transferring executive power to prime minister Alix Didier Fils-Aimé.
News source(s): https://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20260207-haiti-s-transitional-council-disbands-with-nothing-to-replace-it
Credits:
- Nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
- Updated by CastleFort1 (talk · give credit), Mr. Lechkar (talk · give credit), Durranistan (talk · give credit) and Bremps (talk · give credit)
Article updated
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Haiti's been struggling for a while now. The council was intended to facilitate a popular election for a president though that's not in the cards right now. Bremps... 00:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
- Lean support Could count as ITN/R on a technicality. While the actual office of the presidency is vacant, the Transitional Presidential Council acted with the executive powers of Haiti, and then transferred to the Prime Minister. Only a lean support since there are some duplicate citations that need to be resolved first. Quality of the article looks sufficient for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
(Ready) RD: Jeane Freeman
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Herald Scotland
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Drchriswilliams (talk · give credit)
- Created by Zcbeaton (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Member of the Scottish Parliament who was Minister for Social Security 2016–2018 then Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport 2018–2021. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've added three Cn tags. The article might be ready soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. Sourcing issues appear to be fixed. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The birth date seems to be cited only to the month, not the day. The Instagram link I cannot access, but it would likely not be RS anyways. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu: On closer inspection, I agree- The STV and Times obituaries both only list birth month. The source in the article is Companies House which lists a month and year for people registered as directors etc. I've update the birth dates listed accordingly. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- That should work now. Support, ready, @Admins willing to post ITN: 22:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Brad Arnold
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): USA Today TMZ Rolling Stone
Credits:
- Created and nominated by thrashbandicoot01 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Lead singer of the American rock band 3 Doors Down thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not Quite Ready Discography needs citations. Otherwise, while a bit short, the article is not in dreadful shape. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose just deleting the discography is one way of solving the problem. But I think it is suboptimal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Issues fixed. Article is still a bit short, but isn't a stub. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Highly notable musician and article is well referenced and comprehensive. CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 09:48, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose article is still orange tagged. Scuba 17:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
February 6
[edit]|
February 6, 2026 (Friday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
Sports
|
(Posted) RD: Terrance Gore
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [7]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Muboshgu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by DarkSide830 (talk · give credit) and Bagumba (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Article looks well-cited. RIP. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Three-time world series champion. Article is decently long and has no citation needed tags or issues. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The birth date does not seem to be referenced. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's listed in the baseball-reference.com link. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you, should be good to go now. @Admins willing to post ITN: Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's listed in the baseball-reference.com link. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article seems well cited. RIP. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 01:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Sufficient sourcing and breadth.—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Shaea al-Zindani
[edit]Blurb: Shaea al-Zindani is inaugurated as prime minister of Yemen. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Yemeni prime minister Shaea al-Zindani assumes office with his cabinet.
News source(s): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/6/new-yemen-government-formed-with-shaya-mohsin-al-zindani-as-prime-minister
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Bremps (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Nominator's comments: Yemen is split in twain but he's of the internationally recognized faction; hence no qualifiers. Bremps... 01:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Article is kind of short and in need of more refs. Bremps... 01:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality for now Article is a stub. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Yemen is actually split in three with Iran backing the Houthis, UAE backing the STC and the Saudis backing this new cabinet. The blurb doesn't explain any of this and the target article is feeble. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- The STC controls no territory at the moment, so it's hard to say it also splits Yemen. AustrianEarlyOne (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Recent events demonstrate that control of South Yemen is volatile and that the issue of separatism is still live. The similar case of Somaliland indicates that such aspirations do not settle easily. Anyway, the point is that the blurb doesn't indicate how riven Yemen is and the article doesn't either. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Though this issue of separatism is still alive, AustrianEarlyOne is correct: the STC no longer controls parts of Yemen. At it stands, Yemen is split between the Saudi-backed government and the Houthis. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Recent events demonstrate that control of South Yemen is volatile and that the issue of separatism is still live. The similar case of Somaliland indicates that such aspirations do not settle easily. Anyway, the point is that the blurb doesn't indicate how riven Yemen is and the article doesn't either. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Would including the fact that he's the prime minister of the internationally-recognized government properly indicate this point in the blurb? As for his article, I'm currently in the process of expanding it, and I've added a better image for the nom. Hsnkn (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- The STC controls no territory at the moment, so it's hard to say it also splits Yemen. AustrianEarlyOne (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft support I wouldn't say his article is a stub, but it is definitely start class. Scuba 15:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- How's it look now? Hsnkn (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose current blurbs per Andrew, not neutral and misleading Kowal2701 (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- ah yes we must maintain our neutrality and pretend the Houthis are a legitimate government. Scuba 18:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- We say not that the Houthis are legitimate but that there are other threats/claimants to the internationally recognised government's power and control. Presenting it as the government of Yemen is misleading and omits important nuance. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Because it is a government. JaxsonR (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are also governments but we don't omit changes in Moldovan or Georgian leadership because of that. Scuba 00:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- That would be very different, the Houthis dont claim to be a seperate country. JaxsonR (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- so what's your point? the existence of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic doesn't exclude Lukashenko making an appearances in ITN every time he rigs an election. Scuba 21:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Well actually, we did note the... irregularities in the 2025 blurb and the 2020 blurb. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- so what's your point? the existence of the Rada of the Belarusian Democratic Republic doesn't exclude Lukashenko making an appearances in ITN every time he rigs an election. Scuba 21:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- That would be very different, the Houthis dont claim to be a seperate country. JaxsonR (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are also governments but we don't omit changes in Moldovan or Georgian leadership because of that. Scuba 00:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- "legitimate" is a value judgement, we're better off going with the de facto situation than pushing propaganda Kowal2701 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- ah yes we must maintain our neutrality and pretend the Houthis are a legitimate government. Scuba 18:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Less than a month ago we posted the government capture of Aden and collapse of the STC. This is just the political follow-up to that event; Zindani's predecessor fled during the STC offensive. No election has been held. Modest Genius talk 16:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, it is an indirect consequence of the STC collapse, but it is a distinct turn of events, as his predecessor Salem Saleh bin Braik only resigned after the STC was already out. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. I would also capitalize Prime Minister of Yemen. Hsnkn (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - Shouldnt this be listed at ITN/R? JaxsonR (talk) 05:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. WP:ITNELECTIONS states:
"Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government [...] as listed at List of current heads of state and government."
According to that list, its the president of Yemen, not the prime minister, which holds executive power. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't believe so. WP:ITNELECTIONS states:
(Posted) RD: Sonny Jurgensen
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Created by GABaker (talk · give credit)
- Updated by BradyBunchFan (talk · give credit) and TheInevitables (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Looks good, but would prefer if other refs can be found for the early life section and the college section - they only have 1 ref supporting all those statements. Natg 19 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article's quality looks good for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 17:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - article looks good. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Trial of former Republic of Artsakh leaders
[edit]Blurb: Former members of the military-political leadership of the unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, including three former presidents and one acting president, have been sentenced by an Azerbaijan court, five of them are sentenced to life imprisonment. (Post)
Alternative blurb: An Azerbaijani court convicts former military and political leaders of the former unrecognized Republic of Artsakh, including four former presidents.
Alternative blurb II: An Azerbaijani court convicts former military and political leaders of the breakaway Republic of Artsakh, including three Artsakhi presidents (Arayik Harutyunyan pictured).
News source(s): [8]
Credits:
- Nominated by Wi1-ch (talk · give credit)
- Created by Fixer88 (talk · give credit)
Wi1-ch (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support though it should be a little more clear than Artsakh no longer exists. Could be worded like "Leadership of the former Republic of Artsakh were sentenced" Ion.want.uu (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't the point that it never existed? 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- "Former unrecognized Republic of Artsakh" seems to convey the point neutrally enough. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Isn't the point that it never existed? 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Added altblurb. Undecided on notability, but quality looks fine. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Large & high quality recent update in response to current events trumps the iffy significance for me. Can't verify the sources, but will AGF for long time editor with 100K edits. Removing the ITNR tag, as I think that was done by mistake. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality of update, its only one sentence in the lede about this trial, there should be much much more if that's the topic framing. Masem (t) 21:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality per Masem. Neutral on notability; would reassess once article is further updated. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 00:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Closed military trial (court martial) of political leadership of now absorbed state without substantial coverage beyond Azerbaijan. It should also be nited that none of the trialed BLPs have been updated, Arkadi Ghukasyan directly states in the lead "currently facing criminal charges in Azerbaijan". Gotitbro (talk) 05:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability though I don't believe it needs to be specified that the Republic of Artsakh was
"unrecognized"
. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- Well, if we don't we could run into problems of making it sound like it was a full, recognised, nation, when in fact it was not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would be implied nor would it be relevant. If anything, using
"breakaway"
(as the article uses) or"separatist"
would be more relevant and provide appropriate context to an unfamiliar reader."Unrecognized"
isn't that helpful because this blurb isn't about Artsakh's diplomatic relations / international status. - Suggesting altblurb2 that doesn't use the word "former" three times. Also note that three presidents were convicted; the fourth was only acting president. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:44, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see how that would be implied nor would it be relevant. If anything, using
- Well, if we don't we could run into problems of making it sound like it was a full, recognised, nation, when in fact it was not. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Artsakh and other unrecognized countries aren't ITN material, we never included any of these presidents in ITN when they where elected, so why should we include them now that they've been sentenced? Scuba 15:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ITNATA:
"Opposing a specific story merely because one opposes all stories of that type ... do not often generate agreement from the community."
I wouldn't agree that"unrecognized countries aren't ITN material"
considering that they are posted from time to time, such as Northern Cyprus recently. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)- Northern Cyprus was a special case because the new president was pro-unification. as said in the discussion. Scuba 18:45, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- WP:ITNATA:
- Support it should be there Meow3323 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- support notable decimation of a nations.Psephguru (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support, quality is good, everything cited at least, though the Verdict section could be expanded, and possibly an Aftermath/Reactions section created. Prefer ALT 2 Kowal2701 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support article looks excellent. The condemnation of the high-ranking civil and military authorities of a former semi-sovereign nation is, I believe, ITN-worthy, especially when it is for war. In fact, I would even consider it to be a non-independent region. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) 2026 Winter Olympics
[edit]Blurb: The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano/Cortina starts (Post)
Alternative blurb: The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milano/Cortina opens
Alternative blurb II: The 2026 Winter Olympics, held in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy, opens
Alternative blurb III: The Winter Olympics open in Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, Italy.
News source(s): [9]
Credits:
- Nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)
- Created by Abhiramakella (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: Several sports are already two days into competition. BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Full Support; it's about time we have something positive here. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait a bit As previously stated in the ongoing suggestion and per ITNR, we post the opening ceremony and that needs to happen first, which is not until about 3 hrs from when I'm writing this, so we're talking at least 6 hrs from now. Then we can post. We know some events are ongoing but the ceremony is the event that we have always used. Masem (t) 15:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait per Masem. As mentioned below, the Olympics is not officially open until the Opening Ceremony. Natg 19 (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Currently our Opening Ceremony article is very subpar so it needs to be substantially improved in the next few hours if we want to post it. Natg 19 (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Opening Ceremony article still needs a lot of improvement. Support Winter Olympics to Ongoing for now. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Could support the current blurbs, which do not bold the opening ceremony. Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- Support the opening ceremony article is now ready. Good work Rushtheeditor! Natg 19 (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony. This is already nominated in the 4 Feb section below, let's not duplicate the same discussion. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- That is a different nomination about the timeline of the sports. JaxsonR (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony as all above. We post the Opening Ceremony (when it has happened and the article is ready), then if it scrolls off, it goes to Ongoing (with a Timeline or Medal Count article linked as well), then we post the Closing Ceremonies. That's how it's been on ITN since I started contributing to Wikipedia. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 18:27, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Opening ceremony procession is over now. Scuba 22:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The opening ceremony is over, the Winter Olympics for 2026 have officially begun. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unless I am missing something, this article just looks like a list. If I am wrong please correct me. JaxsonR (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Opening ceremony article updated with proceedings and aftermath. Rushtheeditor (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle The Olympics have begun. Maybe it could also be in ongoing. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support The opening ceremony concluded several hours ago, and the articles for both the games and the ceremony look fine. I also support a move to ongoing should this slide off the front page while the games are in progress. PolarManne (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Alt III I think the opening ceremony article is of adequate quality and it should be published as soon as possible. LiamKorda 06:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Alt3 on conciseness. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 18:55, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

- Comment A photo of the actual opening ceremony (such as the one on the right) could be added. FallingGravity 05:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Image added —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
2026 Islamabad suicide bombing
[edit]Blurb: A suicide attack at a mosque during Friday prayers killed at least 31 people and more than 150 were injured in Islamabad, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters, BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, France 24, ABC News, CBS News, The Guardian
Credits:
- Nominated by Ainty Painty (talk · give credit)
Ainty Painty (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Probably should not mention injuries though. JaxsonR (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Moderate Support; let's wait for more information about preperators and if the BLA was behind it, although the IS and Taliban paper to be behind it. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Major attack with dozens of fatalities, hundreds of injuries and has been covered internationally. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose tragic, but this kind of attacks are sadly too common in Pakistan. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per 2026 in Pakistan, this seems to be second-deadliest attack this year. Most such bombings have fatalities in the single digits. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was also the deadliest attack targeting a religious place in Pakistan since 2023. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- We posted the 2025 Islamabad suicide bombing that had a smaller death toll. This is the capital of Pakistan, not a small town with no security. JaxsonR (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per 2026 in Pakistan, this seems to be second-deadliest attack this year. Most such bombings have fatalities in the single digits. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:43, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft support recentism is a factor, but with a death toll like this it shouldn't be the defining factor. Scuba 00:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. Major attack in a capital city. Hsnkn (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support per above. Note the 2025 precedent. Bremps... 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
February 5
[edit]|
February 5, 2026 (Thursday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Science and technology
Sports
|
RD: Vladimir Kuroyedov
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://ria.ru/20260205/rossiya-2072556019.html
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Jkaharper (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Aside from needing to cite the awards section the article seems good enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support article looks good enough. Scuba 17:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) New START
[edit]Blurb: The expiry of the New START makes Russia–United States relations without any nuclear arms reduction treaties for the first time since 1972. (Post)
Alternative blurb: New START, the last active nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia, expires.
News source(s): CNN, The Associated Press, Reuters
Credits:
- Nominated by UCinternational (talk · give credit)
- Created by Lesswealth (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Theunion2030 (talk · give credit) and AlexeyKhrulev (talk · give credit)
Article needs updating
UCinternational (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Added ALT1, which is more direct and relies less on the whole "first time since YYYY" thing that gets significant pushback at ITN (nevermind that the Russian Federation didn't exist in 1972, so all sources declare this to be the first time, period). Departure– (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose We are in a new era in which neither Putin nor Trump can be relied on to observe any treaty, and Trump in particular, has been tearing up lots of them lately. Because of their actions, other powers such as Germany are now contemplating getting nuclear weapons. So, this particular expiry seems a small detail compared to the overall assessment of the scientists who set the Doomsday Clock to its most advanced setting recently. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose A treaty expires is not really a news, only what happened afterwards that is noteworthy enough is. NotKringe (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is not a random treaty randomly expiring and plentiful top-tier WP:RS coverage tells something very different. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose – AlexeyKhrulev did a nice job expanding the article, but it doesn't feel quite quality enough yet. Doing a quick Google News search, it looks like ITNSIGNIF is easily met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- More specifically, there's four citation-neededs, one clarify, and one 'unreliable source?'. I just changed a whole section to past tense, but that section probably requires some updates based on new information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Is this the start of new nuclear arms race (Nuclear arms race#Post–Cold War)? Perhaps. But while a treaty expiring is news, it is isn't significant in and of itself. As the significance here entirely relies on WP:CRYSTAL what nows. If the treaty was violated or otherwise terminated out of process, its termination then would be significant news itself but that is not the case here. Gotitbro (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like to object to opposes based on WP:CRYSTAL. It is policy, but only regarding article contents. If the world media is into some inane feeding frenzy over what proves to be a nothingburger, and we share the FACT up front that they are into silly speculation, there is no WP policy violation. The only embarrassment on our end is that we encouraged clickbait trash. ~2026-81816-3 (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support when properly updated, the expiration of a treaty can be just as fitting to be posted on ITN as the signing of the treaty itself. I see no CRYSTAL in saying that the treaty has ceased. --GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 23:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Strong support – definitely ITN worthy and the article is in good enough shape. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this is now featured in German Wikipedia's ITN and made it there very quickly as many editors understood the notability. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb for conciseness. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Altblurb - Definitely significant and notable enough to be ITN. Also agree with GhostStalker that there is no WP:CRYSTAL in saying that this treaty has expired. ***Eliza*** (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Hotline I'm still not convinced that this treaty is a big deal as Russia already suspended participation in 2023. But I see that, in other fresh news from the Ukraine peace talks, the US and Russian military have re-established their hotline which may help in resolving incidents. Our article about that needs work though: Moscow–Washington hotline. Recall also Dr Strangelove and wonder how those calls between Putin and Trump compare. In that movie, the crisis was triggered by fluoridation and now, RFK plan's are advancing. "Truth is stranger than fiction"! Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fluoridation was just a cover story, a rationalization for irrational behavior. More specifically, it was triggered by a rogue general whose simultaneous hatred of communism and impotence in his love-life drove him to the ultimate form of compensation. In fact, his character was very likely based on Curtis LeMay, who apart from dutifully drawing up strategic bombing plans for annihilating Russia, apparently had repeatedly sought to nuke North Korea into oblivion during the Korean War so much so that new security protocols were set in place to prevent unauthorized use of nuclear weapons.
- If the latter is indeed true, then I would hesitate to draw parallels between now and the past, particularly to Dr. Strangelove, since the Cold War was a much different time both strategically and technologically. That said, I tend to agree that the reestablishment of the hotline (which is actually not a red phone, as commonly believed) is a bigger deal. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The BBC report links the hotline with START:
This marks a significant rapprochement between the world's two largest nuclear powers and comes after President Donald Trump repeatedly voiced his desire to normalise relations between both countries.
The announcement also came amid reports the US and Russia were negotiating a deal to extend a nuclear arms reduction treaty due to expire on Thursday. - It seems that Russia and the US are actively negotiating and so this is a work-in-progress. We should perhaps await a conclusion.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- It seems I've been subject to a bout of word blindness[sarcasm]; nowhere in that quote does it mention the hotline. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If the BBC doesn't work for you, try Euronews,
The US and Russia have agreed to resume military communications hotlines following talks...
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)- In the Euronews article, it has the opposite problem - not mentioning the nuclear deal. This nomination isn't about the hotline, it's about the nuclear deal (or newly-lack-thereof). Thus this entire thread, is really pointless. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is breaking news about ongoing negotiations and so different sources present the emerging details in different ways. See Axios for coverage of both these aspects and more including extensions to and modifications of New Start. These matters are all related aspects of Russian-US military relations which are now evolving. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- In the Euronews article, it has the opposite problem - not mentioning the nuclear deal. This nomination isn't about the hotline, it's about the nuclear deal (or newly-lack-thereof). Thus this entire thread, is really pointless. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:56, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- If the BBC doesn't work for you, try Euronews,
- It seems I've been subject to a bout of word blindness[sarcasm]; nowhere in that quote does it mention the hotline. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- The BBC report links the hotline with START:
- Support - Blurb-worthy news that could well affect all life on Earth. Jusdafax (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support given the global importance of New START, not WP:CRYSTAL as we're not speculating on a new arms race but only pointing out that the treaty expired. The specifics of its renegotiation and how it connects to the reopening of the hotline are all a bit murky, so I wouldn't be opposed to keeping our options open for updating the blurb in that regards. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - global importance. Article looks good.BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support, altblurb looks good. The lack of any nuclear arms protections has immediate effect, not just speculation. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:23, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt per Chaotic Enby. Prefer the alt per Departure. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's orange-tagged. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Took about twenty seconds fixing the issue you added the orange tag for :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- You didn't fix it. For example, there's a deadlines section which lists a bunch of things to be done in the future. But that's all history now. Did they happen? The article doesn't say. This is essentially the proseline problem of isolated updates being made as things happen. The treaty now has a long history and it needs consolidating in a retrospective way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a diary. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Took about twenty seconds fixing the issue you added the orange tag for :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:27, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- It's orange-tagged. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted Stephen 21:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: Masalit genocide
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Pencilceaser123 (talk · give credit)
- Oppose only two edits this year. Greedycell (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for several reasons. The topic is not receiving coverage in the news and the article has no substantial updates in almost 2 months so fails WP:ITNSIGNIF. The "Masalit genocide" also does not have scholarly recognition, and has so far not been added to List of genocides. The article is currently orange tagged although that could be easily fixed. Finally, the Gaza genocide is still ongoing but was removed from ITN, so that comparison doesn't work. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose – The Gaza genocide article wasn't added to ongoing because
any ongoing genocide should be on the front page
, it was because it was frequently updated. I anticipate a WP:SNOW close. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
February 4
[edit]|
February 4, 2026 (Wednesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Lee Hamilton
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:
- Nominated by Goosedukeee (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: US Representative, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission. Article has orange tag. Goosedukeee (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose for now Three paragraphs for 34 years in Congress is not "minimally comprehensive". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose multiple orange tags. Scuba 17:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Mickey Lolich
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [10]
Credits:
- Nominated by Greedycell (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Greedycell (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak oppose I can spot one uncited statement, however, of more concern to me is the WP:TRIVIA section at the end. If kept it needs more refs, but it should more likely be reorganised into the rest of the article. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- These unsourced trivia lists run the risk of turning into WP:CITOGENESIS if sourced from obituaries (that often are just lifting from Wikipedia). —Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Weak support besides the sports trivia, the actual biographical information in the article looks good. Scuba 17:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Elizabeth Kelly
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [11]
Credits:
- Updated and nominated by Omelettemaker (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English actress Omelettemaker (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article quality is sufficient. A few parts of the filmography are unsourced, but it's a small enough portion to not prevent posting. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'd say from my standpoint that that is a showstopper for posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 18:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - unsourced filmography - and a deprecated source used too. - SchroCat (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose no citations in the Filmography. Scuba 16:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John Virgo
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News The Independent
Credits:
- Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
- Updated by HurricaneHiggins (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: English snooker commentator and professional snooker player. ItsShandog (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Well written and I have added a few extra cites to the article. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support absolute hero of mine. Absolutely distraught. Will hopefully get some more work done on it over the next couple of days in addition Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support. The article is in good shape and has been updated. Modest Genius talk 13:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: John_Virgo#Career_finals needs references. SpencerT•C 12:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Spencer: I've just added cites for them. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. 14:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spencer (talk • contribs)
(Posted) Ongoing: Olympics
[edit]Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:
- Nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)
Nominator's comments: Curling starts inside 12 hours, although the official opening is friday for the blurb. Psephguru (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose (for now) — Let's post a blurb for the opening ceremony. If that blurb rolls off before the Games end, then I think an ongoing entry would be warranted, but for now I don't see a need. DecafPotato (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait The Olympics are typically an ongoing item and it is listed at ITN/R (
The Olympics, as the world's leading multi-day multi-sport event, is accepted as an appropriate "ongoing" entry.
), but we should wait until after the opening ceremony, as that is the official start of the Games. Additionally the ongoing item should just be 2026 Winter Olympics, not this other article. Natg 19 (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose It's better to have 2026 Winter Olympics as the target article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Chronology has the updates.Psephguru (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- @MtPenguinMonster Another way to do it is to link the Olympics main page and then this summary in parentheses Thedevilif (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable. How was it during the paris games? Psephguru (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @MtPenguinMonster Another way to do it is to link the Olympics main page and then this summary in parentheses Thedevilif (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Chronology has the updates.Psephguru (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Proposed article does not look to be of appropriate quality for an Ongoing feature right now. 2026 Winter Olympics does look like it would work, but I guess it's fine to wait for the blurb on Friday anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I'd stick to the normal practice of blurb the opening, then once over, the closing with whoever has the most medals. TheCorriynial (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- comment certainly not this article. Main 2026 Winter Olympic article maybe, but not this one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony, and I agree this is the wrong target article. Modest Genius talk 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment it appears that for the 2024 Olympics, we actually linked both the main article and the "timeline" article. We typically post the opening ceremony and the closing ceremony, but only if the articles meet quality standards. Natg 19 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Did we only do that because all of the other ongoings also had a timeline article? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait - Lets wait until the opening ceremony blurb rolls off. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support adding 2026 Winter Olympics (timeline) to ongoing consistent with 2024 Summer Olympics per Natg. I don't see any reason to wait for the official opening ceremonies as the competition has already started. Blurbs for opening and closing ceremonies can be considered separately. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but officially no. The Games begin at the opening ceremony, though for scheduling reasons there are events earlier than that. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- There's already been major events, such as yesterday's Canada-Czechia curling match. I'm not sure why waiting 24 hours for an ongoing makes much difference, unless we think the Olympics may be cancelled or something. It's all over the news right now. It's front pages of major papers here today, and at least one of them yesterday. Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Technically yes, but officially no. The Games begin at the opening ceremony, though for scheduling reasons there are events earlier than that. Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support propsal of EvansHallBear. The main article looks good enough to be added as ongoing, given that it will plenty of updates as the games go on. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait per ModestGenius. TwistedAxe [contact] 02:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the Opening Ceremony as per our usual MO. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 02:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I think ongoing should be added when games begin, before the Opening Ceremony. I know that is a minority opinion but there are events happening now.
- Omnifalcon (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for the opening ceremony per our usual precedent. The Kip (contribs) 19:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support add to ongoing now. There's massive world-wide coverage now. We are in the news - and the news has already opened. Nfitz (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait As I stated under the #2026 Winter Olympics section, we should post the opening ceremony to ITN first, then move it to ongoing if and when that falls off. PolarManne (talk) 05:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support posting to ongoing now. I don't get the point of posting a blurb first, wait until it rolls off and then post this to ongoing. This is a terrible practice from the last few Olympic Games. What if we don't have enough stories to post in the next two weeks and it doesn't roll off? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 18:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment there is a proposal to withdrawl this ongoing item at the subheader Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Winter Olympics (temporary Ongoing removal). Departure– (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
February 3
[edit]|
February 3, 2026 (Tuesday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Disasters and accidents
International relations
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Tom Britt
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:
- Nominated by Thriley (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Skaterlight2013 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American interior designer. Obit published 3 February. Thriley (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft support very close to being a stub, but it has enough sources, albeit barely. Scuba 16:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Nah, that's a stub. Schwede66 19:00, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) February 2026 Kwara State attacks
[edit]Blurb: Attacks on two villages by Islamic State-affiliated Lakurawa gunmen in Kwara State, Nigeria, kill at least 162 people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Attacks on two villages by Islamist gunmen in Kwara State, Nigeria, kill at least 162 people.
News source(s): Associated Press BBC
Credits:
- Created and nominated by Chomik1129 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Chomik! (talk?) 00:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Attacks like this one are fairly common in Nigeria but I think this rises high enough to warrant a blurb. The article is on the short side and can of course be expanded, but everything is cited and it is of sufficient quality to post. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - For an obvious reason, however, it should just say Islamic State. JaxsonR (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Huh, why? It seems like this is an IS-affiliated group operating within Nigeria. Natg 19 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Being the Islamic State and being affiliated with the Islamic State are two different things. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support because as Chorchapu said, deadly attacks by gunmen in Nigeria are common, however, it is not often that over 100 people are killed. I would like to see is the article be expanded though. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Certainly notable and looks good to go. Gotitbro (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The article says that no group has claimed responsibility and that it might have been Boko Haram rather than Lakurawa. There seem to be many such outlaw bands in Nigeria and they might try to implicate others to avoid reprisals. We should not rush to judgement per WP:BLPCRIME. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: How about just Attacks on two villages by Islamic State-affiliated gunmen in ...? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- The BBC report presents multiple theories as to what happened in this case such as
apparently to distract the security forces who have successfully hunted down several terrorist and kidnapping gangs
. And/or it was some sort of doctrinal dispute by aBoko Haram splinter faction
. It's not clear. - The key point in that report is that
The assault was one of several across Nigeria in the last few days.
To confirm this, see other reports such as Violence roiling Nigeria...,the current crisis extends far beyond any single community or conflict. Violence ... has spread across much of the country, leaving millions displaced and fuelling what aid agencies describe as one of Africa’s largest – and most overlooked – humanitarian emergencies.
- So, as an encyclopedia, we should be giving this big picture, not cherry-picking a particular sensational incident.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 14:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- The BBC report presents multiple theories as to what happened in this case such as
- Added an altblurb that doesn't identify the perpetrators. Chomik! (talk?) 13:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- One guy claiming shouldn't sway your vote like that. Most sources are reporting on it being the Islamic State. JaxsonR (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Read the page again and it appears that I am wrong. JaxsonR (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Andrew Davidson: How about just Attacks on two villages by Islamic State-affiliated gunmen in ...? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 12:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait for more information per @Andrew Davidson Scooglers (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what more information we need to wait on. It is already confirmed by multiple sources that the attackers were motivated by Islamic extremism and were trying to force the residents to submit to their doctrines. [12] [13]
- The only thing that is not known is which group did the attack (between Boko Haram and Lakurawa), although that is addressed in the article and by the alt blurb. Chomik! (talk?) 14:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt, article is good quality ("Perpetrators" and "Aftermath" sections are a little short though) Kowal2701 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt Article is of good quality and issue is notable. Bremps... 01:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support alt – Article is in good quality, the story has a notable death toll and is widely covered. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
(Closed) Ongoing: US military buildup in the Middle East
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): CNN, etc.
Credits:
- Nominated by Brandmeister (talk · give credit)
Article updated
- Oppose The US often positions such forces in the Middle East. We should wait on a blurb-worthy incident and then reconsider ongoing when that scrolls off. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2026 (UTC)il
- Oppose Any significance here rests on WP:CRYSTAL which we should not and cannot feature as a news item. Gotitbro (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose "Army moves troops". This is news? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- They are building up, like they did in Venezuela. Secretlondon (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support – Article feels a bit short for what we typically put on Ongoing, but it meets all of the criteria well. Seems like an appropriate page to feature; based on activity on the article in the past week, this is a real great showcase for us as a dynamic resource. Ongoing in particular can improve a lot at that part of ITNPURPOSE. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - Since the Iran protests fell out of the news this has replaced it. We also featured Venezuela's build up. JaxsonR (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose mostly on significance per Andrew and Gotitbro. Additionally, the article is not particularly high quality with vague references to "regional instability" and some poor sourcing (WP:AAPOLITICS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS). EvansHallBear (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. If major military action occurs, nominate that for a blurb. Simply moving forces around is not a major event in itself, nor suitable for the ongoing section. Modest Genius talk 19:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Where in the world is...? I thought it would be interesting to see a live map of the current locations of the 11 US CVNs. There are tracking sites for the world's shipping using AIS but I find that this gets turned off by such vessels when such operations are in progress. So, for example, the Abraham Lincoln became a ghost ship after it passed through the Straits of Malacca recently. And this sets up the possibility of spoofing and feints.
- Our article uses CNN as a source for the movement of that ship and CNN attributes unnamed "sources". But CNN is no longer accredited by the Pentagon so I wonder what they are...?
- Andrew🐉(talk) 19:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- A live/real time map of an ongoing event is absolutely outside the purpose of WP. We can keep current but the tracking of military ships at that resolution is just not accept (and strictly from a NOTNEWS perspective, not anything like related to national security). Masem (t) 21:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. There have been numerous times that "US Carrier Task Force relocated to the Middle East" headline has happened since 9/11. Usually to saber-rattle at Iran. Less frequently they send one to East Asian waters when North Korea needs a reminder.Danthemankhan 19:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per all above. Please... _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. Wait until a blurb-worthy event occurs if any to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. As of now it's just a meaningless pressure move. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose until something actually happens as the US moves forces around all the time, especially in the Middle East. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 02:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose but any future blurbs regarding a potential American attack on Iran or such would be a good idea. As it stands right now, there's nothing notable to blurb or post in ongoing. I'd suggest WP:SNOW closing this nom. TwistedAxe [contact] 02:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: John Terris
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360943154/former-lower-hutt-mayor-john-terris-dies
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Yoshi876 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: New Zealand politician. Article looks good aside from a single missing citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: Uncited sentence removed as negative unsourced statement in a BLP (after searching, I was unable to find information about him being convicted for drunk driving in 1986). Pretty close; can the lede be expanded slightly? SpencerT•C 12:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Soft support article could use some work, but it is sufficiently sourced. Scuba 16:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted I've sourced the drink-driving conviction and expanded the lead. With that, it's good enough. Schwede66 18:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted blurb) RD/Blurb: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi
[edit]Recent deaths nomination
Blurb: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son of Libya's former leader Muammar Gaddafi and presidential candidate, is assassinated outside of his home by four unidentified gunmen. (Post)
Alternative blurb: Libyan presidential candidate Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son of Muammar Gaddafi, is assassinated.
Alternative blurb II: Libyan politician Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, a son of Muammar Gaddafi still wanted by the ICC, is assassinated in Zintan.
Alternative blurb III: Libyan politician Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, a son of Muammar Gaddafi wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, is assassinated in Zintan.
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/saif-al-islam-gaddafi-son-late-libyan-leader-has-been-killed-sources-say-2026-02-03/
Credits:
- Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
- Created by Dhartung (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Son of Muammar Gaddafi and Gaddafi loyalist presidential candidate who was just assassinated. Article seems to be nearly there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to go. This is also appears to be a good blurb candidate. Gotitbro (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Fine with the proposed blurb and alt blurb, certainly oppose alt blurb 2 and 3 for serious BLPVIO. To further illustrate the precedent, we have not inserted the still standing ICC warrants against Netanyahu and Putin in recent blurbs to do so for a much more low profile BLP would then be bizarre. Gotitbro (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support RD, also a good blurb candidate The article for the son of Gaddafi is good in quality to post for RD. This is also a blurb candidate, and so my advice for this would be to just bold the Saif al-Islam Gaddafi article and leave the article of the assassination unbolded since the assassination article is still a stub. CastleFort1 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- If interested in an image, the Wikimedia Commons photo of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi from 2021 first needs a license review. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support and mention that he was a presidential candidate This is a major event for Libya, he was polling very high (only second to Dbeibeh) for the upcoming election planned in April 2026. No doubt needs the coverage in the form of a blurb, and the election candidate part should be mentioned as its important in regards to assassinations (ie. how it was mentioned when Miguel Uribe Turbay was assassinated 9 months before the election) ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 22:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb, this is Death as the Story of a notable individual (and not just as a son of Gadaffi. No evaluation on Readiness of article. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 22:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb per death-as-story (though the assassination article is, understandably, still embryonic). Photo? There's one in his article. Moscow Mule (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Wait - Information surrounding his assassination is limited. JaxsonR (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb on notability, quality is mostly there but the "International diplomacy" section is missing some sources (including for a quote which is explicitly required per WP:V). Maybe link "is assassinated" instead of just "assassinated" so it doesn't look like it's a link to the definition of assassination? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb Death is the story and a game changer like Miguel Uribe Turbay. ArionStar (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support death is the story assassination. I've added alt1. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb The assassination of a presidential candidate is unusual and notable. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- support blurb alt1 per above and notable end to the Gaddafi era (however remove last 15 years).Psephguru (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Needs work We shouldn't make so much of the presidential candidate aspect as it appears that the election was scheduled for 2021 and has been repeatedly postponed since. It seems that the country is still divided between rival interim governments and they put off anything which might threaten their interests. I looked for a recent source and found this which indicates that the division of the country is continuing. Perhaps we should just describe him as a Libyan politician. Another long-pending matter is the subject's status as wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agree that there's no point commenting on the "presidential candidate" aspect since the joint bi-governmental 6+6 Committee apparently still has to agree on the full presidential-parliamentary electoral law; HNEC said in Nov 2025 that it would have been happy to hold the presidential election in April 2026, but not without knowing what electoral laws to implement. Boud (talk) (clarify Boud (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC))
- Support blurb in principle, reading through there's enough significance of his bio to almost be there on just "major figure" alone, but the assassination definitely makes this more reasonable as a blurb. However, oppose on quality, there's some unsoruced material including an entire blockquote, and the use of proseline for single sentence paragraphs is really unnecessary on the bio article. Masem (t) 12:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ping @Bucket of sulfuric acid: The above nomination was a duplicate, feel free to leave your comments here instead. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know! - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 20:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support blurb. An assassination of a presidential candidate is notable. He was also the son of a very notable politician (Muammar Gaddafi). The assassination article should be expanded however. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose The election has been postponed for almost a decade and there's little reason to trust that it's going to be held this year (thus it's difficult to compare him to, say, António José Seguro in Portugal). The government itself has not consolidated control in Libya and is not the only government. The "son of Gaddafi" angle would be more convincing if he still had a chance of inheriting power, but Gaddafi was overthrown. Bremps... 21:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
support if changed, see below, but alt 1 of the three Very much notable, but this one is better-worded and doesn't have the un-cited elements of the text. TBH I don't think the wording of any of them are perfect, but this is the best one. I'd rather something like 'Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son of Muammar Gaddafi, is assassinated [in Zintan, Libya]." The 2nd alternative one is too partisan and raises irrelevant information, it should be disregarded out of hand. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I like that wording: short and sweet, no editorializing. I'd even drop the "second": Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Muammar Gaddafi, is assassinated in Zintan, Libya." Or does that violate Sea of Blue? Moscow Mule (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters too much whether you have the 'second' or not, but if you do, I'd change "the son of..." to "son of...", as "the son of..." kind of implies that he's the ONLY son, which is not the case. LevatorScapulaeSyndrome (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support with Altblurb2 or Altblurb3. Saif Gaddafi was wanted for crimes against humanity, so I would go for Altblurb3. Many readers won't know what the ICC is, but seeing "crimes against humanity" they'll guess that it's a court. Considering the huge walls of text that go into title debates and Wikivoice for "genocide", here we have an uncontroversial case: Saif Gaddafi was definitely indicted for crimes against humanity. Boud (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- An indictment is not definitive at all, as crimes against humanity have only been alleged and not proved. As such, altblurb3 falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- In this case there is no exclusion under WP:BLPCRIME, which states that it only applies to
individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures...
. Saif Gaddafi was clearly a public figure: WP:BLPPUBLIC. Boud (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC) (PS: I did writedefinitely
, notdefinitively
. Boud (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC))- The issue is that altblurb3 wording implies he has
definitely
committed crimes against humanity while these have only been alleged. The WP:BLPCRIME guidance thatAccusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction
applies to both public and non-public figures. Adding "alleged" or "suspected" would be enough to fix the blurb. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)- The word "wanted" does not say that Gaddafi definitely committed crimes against humanity; it just means that he was indicted, so it already contains the "alleged" (by witnesses) and "suspected" meanings, but is somewhat stronger, because charges were laid and an arrest warrant issued. Putting "alleged" in to the blurb would be tricky, because there's not much doubt about the killing/injuring/arresting, it's rather the question of intentionality and Saif Gaddafi's allegedly direct role in decision-making and giving orders. How about
... wanted by the ICC for alleged responsibility for crimes against humanity ...
? There doesn't seem to be a suggestion that he did the killings and persecutions himself - this is a case where the ICC went for the top political leaders apparently responsible for the crimes, believing that they had enough evidence to go up the chain of command. If we wanted newsy-speak, we could put... wanted by the ICC for allegedly masterminding crimes against humanity ...
, but since the responsibility also included (at least) his father, it would have to be... for allegedly co-masterminding ...
. Boud (talk) 23:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- The word "wanted" does not say that Gaddafi definitely committed crimes against humanity; it just means that he was indicted, so it already contains the "alleged" (by witnesses) and "suspected" meanings, but is somewhat stronger, because charges were laid and an arrest warrant issued. Putting "alleged" in to the blurb would be tricky, because there's not much doubt about the killing/injuring/arresting, it's rather the question of intentionality and Saif Gaddafi's allegedly direct role in decision-making and giving orders. How about
- The issue is that altblurb3 wording implies he has
- In this case there is no exclusion under WP:BLPCRIME, which states that it only applies to
- An indictment is not definitive at all, as crimes against humanity have only been alleged and not proved. As such, altblurb3 falls afoul of WP:BLPCRIME. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support on notability, but needs work - When I voted initially, the article for the assassination itself was very short and void of a lot of information, an issue which seems to have since been largely remedied. Once some additional citations are added for the places where they're missing, it should be good to go. Preferably blurbed with any of the proposed altblurbs. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 20:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disagree, the assassination article is barely above stub level and most of the article is just a background section. The bolded article should be the article about Gaddafi himself. Natg 19 (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Note: I have just nominated at AfD the Assassination article to be deleted. So, it should probably not be linked from the MP until the discussion closes. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: The aforementioned nomination for deletion on the assassination article was later withdrawn. CastleFort1 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry I forgot to update this. Thanks for putting this note here. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Update: The aforementioned nomination for deletion on the assassination article was later withdrawn. CastleFort1 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support - definitely for ITN.BabbaQ (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Ready? I went back to the Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi article and have resolved the three CN tags. The quote from Notes from Hell was verified through Google Books, the 2003 claim was struck from the record because it had no source, and the 2004 claim relating to The Globe and Mail was also struck because the archives go back to 2007 and the verifiability was too difficult. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Admins willing to post ITN: I have pinged the ITN admins to verify if the article is indeed ready for posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Meow3323 (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted modified blurb No clear consensus on which blurb, so went with a modified simpler form, given some stated objections over presidential candidacy, being second son, and BLP concerns over ICC. Discuss further if tweaks are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
February 2
[edit]|
February 2, 2026 (Monday)
Armed conflicts and attacks
Business and economy
Disasters and accidents
Law and crime
Politics and elections
|
RD: Gabor Boritt
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Gettysburg Connection
Credits:
- Nominated by Engineerchange (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Hyperfuse22 (talk · give credit), Jkaharper (talk · give credit) and Vlove1 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: American Civil War historian Engineerchange (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
- Not ready – Many unsourced sections. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose article is orange tagged due to lack of citations. Scuba 16:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
RD: Chuck Negron
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:
- Nominated by ~2026-76047-6 (talk · give credit)
- Updated by Clammodest (talk · give credit) and Joe Vitale 5 (talk · give credit)
Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: Founding member of Three Dog Night. ~2026-76047-6 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose Swathes of unreferenced text. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose article in pretty bad shape source-wise. Scuba 16:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) RD: Ranjit Das (footballer)
[edit]Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Star
Credits:
- Nominated by Natg 19 (talk · give credit)
- Created by FNH004 (talk · give credit)
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNQUALITY.
Nominator's comments: In decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support well sourced and comprehensive. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Opposecountless people who are many times as notable aren't/haven't been featured. Article quality is not the only criteria. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)- This is RD. In fact, article quality is the only criteria. The recent death of any person (or animal) with a Wikipedia article is considered notable enough to post. If you believe that the subject does not deserve an article, then start an AfD. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining. I struck my vote. Looks like I'd need to take this concern to the talk page about RD. I think other criteria/notability should also be considered and would then also encourage minimum quality requirement standards to be slightly reduced and maybe more people to be nominated via scans for unnominated people in the respective month's deaths cat. --Prototyperspective (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- This is RD. In fact, article quality is the only criteria. The recent death of any person (or animal) with a Wikipedia article is considered notable enough to post. If you believe that the subject does not deserve an article, then start an AfD. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 17:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted to RD. Unreferenced league/national titles in the Honours section are appropriately referenced elsewhere in the article prose. SpencerT•C 07:22, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
(Posted) Costa Rica election
[edit]Blurb: Laura Fernández Delgado (pictured) is elected as the president of Costa Rica. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:
- Nominated by Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
- Updated by PizzaKing13 (talk · give credit), Moscow Mule (talk · give credit), Borgenland (talk · give credit), Alsor97 (talk · give credit) and Chorchapu (talk · give credit)
The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.
Nominator's comments: With over 3/4 of the votes counted, Fernandez has achieved a majority. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality as the article is a table-fest with little prose. I've also updated the nom to ITNR as a national general election. The Kip (contribs) 04:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support.
Not ready. Very thin on prose -- on both the results (which is ok: breaking news) and the campaign (more of a problem now that it's over).Coming along nicely now. Ready. Moscow Mule (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
:Oppose article needs a lot of work. It needs more in-depth coverage of the election (background, prose on candidates and results sections, Aftermath and/or Reactions section, more extensive Campaign) and covers almost nothing about the Legislative Assembly elections. The article in Spanish may help. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am improving the article. A helping hand would be great, especially to include updated tables in the infobox and legislative assembly results, and to expand the campaign section (it would be desirable to compile the candidates' proposals). _-_Alsor (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Alsor97: I can help with expansion. Which parts do you plan to work on, to avoid edit conflicts? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu I won't continue until tomorrow, so feel free to edit without any worries on my part. The campaign section needs to be expanded: you can take a look at 2025 Chilean general election and 2025 Honduran general election, which I worked recently on and think will give you some guidance. Thank you! _-_Alsor (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you as well! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu And also a section about parliamentary candidates is needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'll keep that in mind as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu I won't continue until tomorrow, so feel free to edit without any worries on my part. The campaign section needs to be expanded: you can take a look at 2025 Chilean general election and 2025 Honduran general election, which I worked recently on and think will give you some guidance. Thank you! _-_Alsor (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Alsor97: I can help with expansion. Which parts do you plan to work on, to avoid edit conflicts? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- I am improving the article. A helping hand would be great, especially to include updated tables in the infobox and legislative assembly results, and to expand the campaign section (it would be desirable to compile the candidates' proposals). _-_Alsor (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment I'll support this blurb once the campaign section is expanded via content from the Spanish article. A results prose appears to exist in the header of the article at this time, and it can be simply transferred over to the results section. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Change to support The campaign and aftermath sections have been expanded. Results have their respective proses. Amount of sourcing is adequate. The article appears ready to post. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose on quality. Beyond the election article issues already noted, Laura Fernández Delgado is fairly barebones and the article on her party PPSO is still a stub. President of Costa Rica isn't great either with no history and a wall of text on duties. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Although you are right, please note that the primary and decisive factor in the success of the nomination is the quality of the main article. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support: Article significantly expanded since original nomination, and contains an acceptable amount of prose and is fully cited. Seeing no reason to oppose any longer. Has the quality I would expect for a front page article of a current event. Certainly could probably continue to be expanded, but at present, it looks ready! AaronNealLucas (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Comment The article has been greatly improved. @The Kip, Moscow Mule, Alsor97, and CastleFort1: Do you wish to update your !votes with regards to this? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Chorchapu My vote for the blurb already changed to support. CastleFort1 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Moscow Mule (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Support and marking ready excellent work @Chorchapu:! Thank you. Article looks good to post. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Posted, thanks a lot to @Chorchapu again! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
References
[edit]Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.
For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: