Jump to content

Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

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.

Laura Fernández Delgado in 2017
Laura Fernández Delgado

view — page history — related changes — edit

Glossary

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

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

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

Purge this page to update the cache

Headers

[edit]
  • When the article is ready, updated and there is consensus to post, you can mark the item as (Ready). Remove that wording if you feel the article fails any of these necessary criteria.
  • Admins should always separately verify whether these criteria are met before posting blurbs marked (Ready). For more guidance, check WP:ITN/A.
    • If satisfied, change the header to (Posted).
    • Where there is no consensus, or the article's quality remains poor, change the header to (Closed) or (Not posted).
    • Sometimes, editors ask to retract an already-posted nomination because of a fundamental error or because consensus changed. If you feel the community supports this, remove the item and mark the item as (Pulled).

Voicing an opinion on an item

[edit]

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

Please do...

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

Please do not...

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

Suggesting updates

[edit]

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

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

Structure

[edit]

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

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

February 6

[edit]

February 5

[edit]

New START

[edit]
Article: New START (talk · history · tag)
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
Article needs updating

 UCinternational (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Strong support – definitely ITN worthy and the article is in good enough shape. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Altblurb for conciseness. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: Masalit genocide

[edit]
The nominated article does not have the required frequency of updates. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Masalit genocide (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Should be added in parentheses with Sudan war. This article was changed to "genocide" relatively recently, and I believe any ongoing genocide should be on the front page, similar to how the Gaza genocide was. I want the second Darfur genocide page up instead, but it is of lower quality. Also, sorry I wasn't sure what date to put an ongoing event on. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only two edits this year. Greedycell (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 4

[edit]

RD: Lee Hamitlon

[edit]
Article: Lee Hamilton (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Washington Post
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: US Representative, Vice-Chair of the 9/11 Commission. Article has orange tag. Goosedukeee (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mickey Lolich

[edit]
Article: Mickey Lolich (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [1]
Credits:

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

 Greedycell (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Elizabeth Kelly

[edit]
Article: Elizabeth Kelly (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): [2]
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English actress Omelettemaker (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: John Virgo

[edit]
Article: John Virgo (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC News The Independent
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: English snooker commentator and professional snooker player. ItsShandog (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ongoing: Olympics

[edit]
Article: Chronological summary of the 2026 Winter Olympics (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Credits:

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose It's better to have 2026 Winter Olympics as the target article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Chronology has the updates.Psephguru (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. How was it during the paris games? Psephguru (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Lets wait until the opening ceremony blurb rolls off. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

February 3

[edit]

February 2026 Kwara State attacks

[edit]
Article: 2026 Kwara State attacks (talk · history · tag)
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:

Article updated

 Chomik! (talk?) 00:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
Support - For an obvious reason, however, it should just say Islamic State. JaxsonR (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, why? It seems like this is an IS-affiliated group operating within Nigeria. Natg 19 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Being the Islamic State and being affiliated with the Islamic State are two different things. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

(Closed) Ongoing: US military buildup in the Middle East

[edit]
WP:SNOW-close. Consensus to post based on notability is extremely unlikely to develop. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2026 United States military buildup in the Middle East (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: No blurb specified (Post)
News source(s): CNN, etc.
Credits:

Article updated
 An ongoing development, with recent engagement of a US fighter jet and Iranian drone and US tanker vs gunboats. Also handy to track armada's movements when nothing is happening. Brandmeister talk 09:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Oppose per all above. Please... _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oppose per above. As of now it's just a meaningless pressure move. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD: John Terris

[edit]
Article: John Terris (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/360943154/former-lower-hutt-mayor-john-terris-dies
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: New Zealand politician. Article looks good aside from a single missing citation. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD/Blurb: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi

[edit]
Proposed image
Articles: Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (talk · history · tag) and Assassination of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (talk · history · tag)
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:

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)[reply]

  • Support Looks good to go. This is also appears to be a good blurb candidate. Gotitbro (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wait - Information surrounding his assassination is limited. JaxsonR (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support blurb Death is the story and a game changer like Miguel Uribe Turbay. ArionStar (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support death is the story assassination. I've added alt1. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support blurb The assassination of a presidential candidate is unusual and notable. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 write definitely, not definitively. Boud (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC))[reply]
    The issue is that altblurb3 wording implies he has definitely committed crimes against humanity while these have only been alleged. The WP:BLPCRIME guidance that Accusations, 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

February 2

[edit]

RD: Chuck Negron

[edit]
Article: Chuck Negron (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Founding member of Three Dog Night. ~2026-76047-6 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ranjit Das (footballer)

[edit]
Article: Ranjit Das (footballer) (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): The Daily Star
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: In decent shape. Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose countless 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(Posted) Costa Rica election

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 2026 Costa Rican general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Laura Fernández Delgado (pictured) is elected as the president of Costa Rica. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: With over 3/4 of the votes counted, Fernandez has achieved a majority. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 04:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Alright, thank you as well! Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Chorchapu And also a section about parliamentary candidates is needed. _-_Alsor (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind as well. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

February 1

[edit]

Grammy Awards

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: 68th Annual Grammy Awards (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At the Grammy Awards, "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar and SZA wins Record of the Year, and Debí Tirar Más Fotos by Bad Bunny (pictured) wins Album of the Year. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Grammy Awards, "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar and SZA wins Record of the Year, and Debí Tirar Más Fotos by Bad Bunny (pictured) wins Album of the Year, becoming the first Spanish-language album to win in the category.
Alternative blurb II: ​ At the Grammy Awards, "Luther" by Kendrick Lamar and SZA wins Record of the Year, and Debí Tirar Más Fotos by Bad Bunny wins Album of the Year.
News source(s): THR, NYTimes
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Per format for Grammys at ITNR. Article is updated with the winners, and has details of the ceremony's performances, but there is currently a lack of any type of commentary/reception on the ceremony itself which should be there given the ceremony is what we feature. Masem (t) 05:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITNR and good article Scooglers (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support There appears to be an 'In Memoriam' section that's in need of expansion at the end of the article, but that empty section doesn't detract from the good sourcing and sufficient quality that's present in the rest of the article. CastleFort1 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Literally called "music's biggest night". Most prestigious and significant awards in the music industry world wide. The most popular to. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is already presumed by this being ITN/R, but other have concerns about the article quality. Natg 19 (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Australian Open

[edit]
Carlos Alcaraz
Elena Rybakina
Alcaraz and Rybakina
Article: 2026 Australian Open (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In tennis, Carlos Alcaraz becomes men's singles champion and Elena Rybakina becomes and women's singles champion at the 2026 Australian Open. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In tennis, Carlos Alcaraz wins the men's singles and Elena Rybakina wins the women's singles at the Australian Open.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In tennis, Carlos Alcaraz wins the Australian Open to become the youngest male player to complete the career Grand Slam.
News source(s): ABC News
Credits:

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

 V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance. The issues preventing this from posting are quality related, as this is significant enough to post, per ITN/R. Natg 19 (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I am suggesting is to use Carlos Alcaraz as the target article, instead of the 2026 Australian Open. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using Alcaraz to try and get around the the quality issue is purely a technicality, and a poor one at that. The blurb's also not ITN/R, for that the target article should be the 2026 Australian Open, and both results must be reported. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the article in its current state is not ready to be posted, but I would support a blurb mentioning Alcaraz being the youngest to complete the career Grand Slam. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not ready. The nominated article has no prose on the actual tournament, just a bunch of tables and some description of precursor events. Needs at least a referenced paragraph each on the men's and women's singles, describing what happened. Fiddling with the blurb to bold a different article is inappropriate and wouldn't qualify for ITNR. Modest Genius talk 19:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on you around changing the target article to get around the lack of quality of the 2026 Australian Open article. Also, both results must be reported on, otherwise it's flatly just not ITN/R for that as well, and is undermining Rybakina's achievement, who also won her first AO. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready - So far the article has not broken the curse of ITNR tennis articles never being posted due to bad article quality. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Rita Süssmuth

[edit]
Article: Rita Süssmuth (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Tagesschau
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: German politician (CDU) and president of the Bundestag. Grimes2 23:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) DRC mine collapse

[edit]
Article: 2026 Rubaya mine collapse (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Over 400 people are killed in a mine collapse in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, Guardian
Credits:

Nominator's comments: Major mining collapse in the DRC. Per List of mining disasters in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the deadliest mining disaster in the DRC this millennium. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 21:46, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, oppose on quality. It is the deadliest meteorological event this year and hundreds of people died. However, the article is extremly short for such a deadly disaster. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article for the meteorological event, @Bloxzge 025? If the damage is more widespread than this, that may be a better target for this (likely ITN) entry. Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is not, and this seems to be the only large effect of the rainfall. All news articles focus on this event. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 00:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Collapse happened on the 28th, news has been slowly reporting on it, but for example, the Guardian article (I just added) is dated the 29th, so it needs to be moved to Jan 28th. Preliminary support on significance but the article needs significant expansion. Masem (t) 00:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the Guardian article in the nomination dated January 30? Not long before midnight GMT (about 50 minutes before January 31). Is there, @Masem, a different Guardian article you are referring to? Though I do wonder why we are discussing this, but not the thousands killed already this year in the civil war. Nfitz (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I was looking at dates since published in my Google search, not the date on the article. But still, the collapse was on the 28th and sources were talking about it on the 30th (not seeing anything english before then). And its RGW to complain about the lack of coverage of the civil war, given that as best as I can tell no one ever nominated it, and plus in regions which are nearly constantly under some type of civil war or rebellion as is the case for many African nations, the news that the West gets tends to be numb to those, though we are not limited to Western sources to show something was in the news. Masem (t) 05:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability.Wi1-ch (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on notability, oppose on quality per above. Notable enough, but article is still too short for the main page. The Kip (contribs) 20:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've gone through sources and there honestly isn't anything else to say about the collapse. At 307 words it's more than a stub but we'd have to wait a while longer for more information to come out about this disaster. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 19:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid then that we just can't do it. The actual incident information isn't that substantial, so I don't think it's time yet, unfortunately. Seems extremely significant, but I don't think its a good demonstration of the dynamic nature of Wikipedia. AaronNealLucas (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support, now 371 words, everything cited, still pretty barebones but decent quality otherwise. At the very least, it wouldn’t be embarrassing to post. There are probably more sources in French Kowal2701 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Detention of Liam Conejo Ramos

[edit]
WP:SNOW close. Relatively minor event on its own and covered by ongoing. (non-admin closure) V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed image
Article: Detention of Liam Conejo Ramos (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A federal judge orders the release of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father (pictured) from immigration detention following national protests. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A US federal judge orders the release of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his father (pictured) following national protests.
News source(s): ABC, BBC, CNN, El País, Guardian, NYT
Credits:

Article updated
 I've redone the nomination for Fife SB who is new to this process. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:05, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose--minor story covered by ongoing. Departure– (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close minor story, too local story, covered by ongoing. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - OMG "national protests" ... "federal judge" ... not even "United States" mentioned in blurb. This would deserve some kind of administrative sanction in my utopic view of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopaedia, not an American news sources. Besides, it was only a procedural "arrest" of an illegal alien. No more. CoryGlee 21:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CoryGlee, I think your suggestion of some kind of administrative sanction, even under the disclaimer of being unserious, is still WP:BITEy, given the person who nominated this is a new user who hasn't posted at ITNC before. Departure– (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is Andrew. CoryGlee 22:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not it wasn't, @CoryGlee. As noted above, it was User:Fife SB. [3]. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well. My comment then was not addressed at the new user. Not even at Andrew. CoryGlee 22:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Posted) Epstein files

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Epstein files (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The US Department of Justice releases its final batch of Epstein files. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The US Department of Justice completes its review and redaction process then releases over 3 million pages and images from the Epstein files.
Alternative blurb II: ​ The US Department of Justice announces it has completed its review process and releases over 3 million documents from the Epstein files.
Alternative blurb III: ​ The US Department of Justice releases over 3 million documents from financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ The US Department of Justice announces it has completed its review process and releases over 3 million documents from the investigation of financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
News source(s): ABC, Al Jazeera, BBC, Japan Times, PBS, Politico
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This seems to be the biggest release and is said to be final. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I support it being in the news, but I would be careful about calling it the final batch, which is controversial. You could say DOJ releases 3M pages of materials from the Epstein files and announces that it has fully complied with the Epstein Transparency Act. --Orgullomoore (talk) 10:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I have added an alt blurb along those lines. I've not included the words "fully complied" because my understanding is that they failed to meet the legal deadline. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, if you're interested, Blanche gave a statement to the effect that case law excuses the lateness because of the time required for redaction. The argument was essentially that if legally required redactions were not practicable within the deadline, then it was not a violation of the law to take their sweet time. I have no idea if that's actually true, nor am I particularly interested in finding out, but thought I'd share the tidbit. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be a good excuse but it's still not full compliance. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Sure, sounds good to nominate it as a "current event"! I don't know what I did to deserve a mention in "updated by", but thanks! It's fine to include my name (also would fine if you choose to remove my name) The "blurb" looks good. I'm wondering about the "alternative blurb", which currently says: "The US Department of Justice completes its review and redaction process..." Someone may argue that DOJ did not "complete" the process it was supposed to do, insofar as it identified 6M files, only released half of them, and did so a month after the deadline set by law to release everything it found. You might change the verb "completes" to "ends", so it says: "Having ended its review and redaction process, the US Department of Justice releases over 3 million pages and images from the Epstein files."
Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tuckerlieberman was listed in the credits because the stats show that they have edited the article more than any other editor and were responsible for about 20% of its current content. The ITN credit isn't a big reward though, alas; the most you get is a brief template on your talk page. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose We didn’t post any earlier stories about the Epstein Files, and as much as I want them released, I still think there were heavy redactions made on some of the perpetrators. I’ll just leave it at that. ~2026-69318-9 (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC) strike sock JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Despite what probably many many hope these files prove, Wikipedia can't jump on making numerous claims that have been reported because of BLP and upholding "innocent before guilty". We also know that there would be prosecution to have anything in these files matter and right now there is very little chance of that happening. Masem (t) 13:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, they were released on Jan 30, which is where this should be located for nomination. Masem (t) 13:28, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Masem. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3, definitely not a routine document release, it's being tackled by many news outlets, and it doesn't really violate BLP. Milk'n'Thyme 21:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ultimately a nothingburger; major redactions, likely not fully disclosed either, and most importantly nothing of consequence to follow. Ping me if this leads to a government going down or a move towards prosecuting any of the offenders, waiting since 2019. Gotitbro (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not relevant, @Gotitbro, but there have been multiple prosecutions since 2019. I doubt more prosecutions would make much difference, and I don't think there's much evidence released that would lead to any that would be ITN. If the alleged honey trp videos were to be released - now then that could be ITN. Nfitz (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, tabloid fodder about the sex lives of celebrities is not newsworthy.Danthemankhan 01:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    'Sex lives of celebrities' is a gross understatement at best, 'sexual abuse conducted by powerful and influential men which was hidden for decades' seems more appropriate jolielover♥talk 05:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt3, oppose original blurb We do not know if this is the final batch. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT3 don't see this is a routine release, and it's in the news widely. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt3 – This is probably the most extensive post-news update I've seen an article have. It is difficult to judge the full quality of the work done in the past days, but it looks appropriate for a feature. I think ITNSIGNIF is very easy to confirm here, looking at both historic news coverage and the sources given in the nomination. The only question is whether this is (finally) the moment to feature our article. While perhaps court cases will follow from this, this really looks to me to be the end of the "Epstein files" chapter of these story. For this specific article, this might be the last significant news update; future news (if any) will not be focused on this article but, presumably, on specific prosecutions. As such, this does feel like the ideal moment to feature this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I'm not sure how this is playing in other countries but it's the top story here in the UK. It was all over the front pages of the newspapers when I perused them earlier. And Lord Mandelson in particular is leading the BBC bulletins now as it appears that he was feeding Epstein with inside financial info while he was a government minister. This is arising from a close perusal of those millions of documents and joining the dots. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Which WP should not be covering at any depth without the results of an actual authorized investigation or court decision per our BLP rules. The fact that the files include unrefacted names of victims as well as unredected nude images is a good reason to avoid giving them any encyclopedic weight until we know how to summarize them appropriately with policy. Masem (t) 18:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is certainly covering this in depth – see Relationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein – one of several such articles. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It would appear that the major Mandelson news was when he resigned, remember reading about him when Andrew was stripped of the titles.
    Ultimately unless something substantial comes of this, this is but gossip and disconcert. Gotitbro (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Any articles created from the basis of the current epstein files suggesting any person named may have done something wrong is in violation of BLP. Existing g articles where new info revealed from the files are different but editors must strongly consider how to include them to avoid BLP issues. Masem (t) 19:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You should take your concerns to an appropriate venue such as WP:BLP/N, where the matter is currently getting no attention. Our job here is to post articles which are in the news and that includes the Epstein files. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to consider all core content policies here too, we are not going to feature articles that are flooded with BLP problems, Masem (t) 21:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem hasn't detailed a single specific BLP issue and the article doesn't seem to have any cleanup tags or disputes on the talk page about such. So, this seems to be just WP:CRYBLP hand-waving without any actionable issues. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The big list of all the names listed in the files is a huge BLPCRIME red flag. Even given that media may have covered there and we throw "allegedly" on all these claims, we should not be at all heading down that road until claims can be affirmed true. Masem (t) 22:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no specifics. Let's suppose Masem means the section Epstein files#Prominent individuals mentioned. The first of these is Woody Allen. The paragraph about him and his wife just gives details of some correspondence and pictures about dinner parties and the like. No crime is suggested and Allen is a public figure. This doesn't seem to be a problem.
    If there were a problem, then Masem should be removing the problematic content from the article. But they are not, are they? ITN posting the existence of the article doesn't change this any of this because the article is already high traffic. And the proposed blurbs don't call out any particular person; they just announce the release. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there was no mention of BLP issues in an open section on the article's talkpage, nor any orange tags, Masem's quality concerns come across as unfounded. I quickly went to the talkpage to raise the subject explicitly; hopefully in a day from now we can have better insight in whether this article meets WP:BLPCRIME. If nothing specific needs to be removed because we're following the language and information of the most high-quality sources, then posting this should not be an issue. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No specific issues have come up on the talkpage. It looks to me like we're properly following reliable sources. The full list part of the article has been split off for editorial reasons, which might make this a more respectable feature now as well anyway. I suggest posting this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alt3 - Honestly, i feel like that given the depravity of this scandal and some of the public and news outcry about it I'm open to actually posting this. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt3 - Whether it's complete is unclear and up for debate at the moment. Let's keep it objective. BappleBusiness[talk] 18:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Posted Alt3 under January 30, feel free to discuss any necessary tweaks. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2026 Balochistan attacks

[edit]
Article: 2026 Balochistan attacks (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ At least 133 people, including the attackers, were killed in attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army in several districts of Balochistan, Pakistan. (Post)
News source(s): BBC, TRT, Reuters, DW, The Guardian
Credits:

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality and notability for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One of the deadliest attacks in recent years. They are still being reported on internationally. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support on notability but would be nice to have article lengthened Scooglers (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 31

[edit]

(Posted) RD: Billy Bass Nelson

[edit]
Article: Billy Bass Nelson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://soultracks.com/p-funk-star-billy-bass-nelson-dies-at-age-75/
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American musician. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: Salim Sayyid Mengga

[edit]
Article: Salim Sayyid Mengga (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): Detik Sulsel
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Indonesian military officer and politician. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

January 30

[edit]

(Attention needed) RD: Ain-Elmar Kaasik

[edit]
Article: Ain-Elmar Kaasik (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): https://novaator.err.ee/1609927394/suri-akadeemik-ain-elmar-kaasik
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Estonian neurologist. Article looks decent. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I just added the birth date to the body of the article as it's already supported by the ref. I don't know why this hasn't gotten any reviews; its quality is sufficient for posting. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 03:05, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose IMO insufficient depth. Article has essentially 1 sentence about his areas of research ("Kaasik's research focused on disorders of cerebral blood flow and metabolism in acute brain injury, and on the epidemiology and diagnosis of neurological diseases.") At present, mostly a CV in prose format. SpencerT•C 06:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Demond Wilson

[edit]
Article: Demond Wilson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): NY Times
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: American Actor. Robert Motecinos Holda (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Catherine O'Hara

[edit]
Proposed image
Article: Catherine O'Hara (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Canadian actress and comedian Catherine O'Hara (pictured) dies aged 71. (Post)
News source(s): Variety
Credits:

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

Nominator's comments: Canadian actress with several notable roles (though I am not nominating for a blurb, she famous/popular but not a major figure). Article has usual problems with unsourced filmography as well as proabably too much SEAOFBLURB (prose with lists of ilms but no discussion between them) Masem (t) 18:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sad news. Support once filmography is cleaned up. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agree with Masem about the filmography; hopefully that can be addressed collaboratively in due course. In terms of a blurb, I don’t think she quite makes the cut, although I would be very curious if there are any retrospectives about her impact and significance of her career for Canadian cinema specifically. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 19:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There possibly could be but the article must be fleshed out to discuss that in detail before considering for a blurb. But I would think she's really an edge case, similar to someone like Betty White (whom I know we posted but that was a mistake to me, far too many !votes based solely on popularity, not as a major figure). Masem (t) 21:03, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support once sourcing is filled out; practically there with just a few gaps from my quick look at the article. On the border for a blurb for me, but will not formally oppose unless someone (IMO undoubtedly and almost certainly POINTedly) actually does so. RIP. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While my personal opinion is that every role should be sourced, we can live with any film or TV show where she is listed among the principle/starring cast in the target article for a notable, blue-linked work. Most of those TV roles are going to need that sourcing due to cameos / guest star appearance which will sourcing. Masem (t) 21:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s fair, I was mostly talking about the cameos myself. GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 21:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support She was quite notable, being in Home Alone and Beetlejuice. RIP. GuyMan529 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support RD once Filmography is sufficiently sourced, as per QuicoleJR. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb There's really only a dozen or so actors alive today that I think would warrant a blurb if they died, and Catherine O'Hara is certainly not one of them. She's not a particularly notable actress (The day before she died she had around a quarter the pageviews as Brad Pitt, and a tenth of Timothee Chalamet), never received much critical acclaim, and is significantly less notable than Betty White, who we also didn't blurb. I don't see any reason why she should be blurbed. Loved her work, though. Elipticon (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We did post a blurb for Betty White [4] (also Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/January 2022), which generally was seen as a problem long after the event. Which is why we have become far more careful and heavily debate about blurbs for celebrities, where fame clouds "major figure" issues (a reason why I push for discussion of legacy or impact as to be able to separate those that really should be blurbed from the more popular ones) Masem (t) 12:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: "We did post a blurb for Betty White, which generally was seen as a problem long after the event." You also once said that the Carrie Fisher + Debbie Reynolds blurb back in 2016 has since been retroactively deemed as a mistake, yet I've never personally seen anyone else describe it that way; the same is true for Betty White. Are there ITN discussions about old death blurbs that I'm not aware of? Kurtis (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those is that they drew a lot of non-regular !voters supporting the posting of the blurb based primarily on popularity and fame. Its not that we should dismiss non-regular !votes, but when they flood a discussion with a reason that is not one of the general allowances we have for RDBlurbs, that's disruptive to the process, and that's why we end up nowadays with some much consternation around RDBlurbs. Masem (t) 17:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... they flood a discussion with a reason that is not one of the general allowances we have for RDBlurbs ...: No, there's not much guidance on acceptable reasons at WP:ITNSIGNIF:

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken the RDBLURB guidance to override or specifically tune ITNSIGNIF for RD blurbs given it is on a separate guideline page, and particularly that we have the sui generis aspect to cover what may be considered a major figure. But regardless of what guideline applies, clearly have had lots of long-standing issues that when a popular person dies, we get floods of non-regulars !voting without considering other ITN guidance like ITNATA. We have that at times with non-RD blurb nominations too, but that's far less of an issue. Masem (t) 14:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but sui generis isn't any more objective. Any "long-standing issues" are sure to remain barring any community consensus to improve the process. —Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurb Absolutely not, per above This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2025-2026 Alberta independentist crisis

[edit]
SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: 2025-2026 Alberta independentist crisis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A diplomatic crisis ensues following the discovery of secret meetings between Albertan separatists and US officials. (Post)
News source(s): https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-alberta-independence-canada-separatists-b2910227.html
Credits:
Nominator's comments: Ongoing political crisis between the United States and Canada over secret talk by the US with a separatist movement in Alberta, the APP. Another evolution in Canadian-US relations which is sure to have effects, and had already a strong reaction by Canadian officials. Details are coming out over the hours, and the article groups most that is known, focusing mostly on the crisis itself.

15:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a nomination made to raise awareness of an article, presumably. EF5 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Authored by another user, I suppose it was meant to be a reply to them then. Thank you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove from ongoing: 2025–2026 Iranian protests

[edit]
Article: 2025–2026 Iranian protests (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item removal (Post)

Nominator's comments: On the prior nomination, numerous editors in opposition(myself included) indicated we should wait a few more days. It has been over a week now, and no substantive updates have occurred, and no reliable reporting on recent events has been published. Articles are still being written, but they are covering events long in the past. It's possible the protests are ongoing or were quashed two weeks ago, but there is little reason to believe the information blackout that has sustained this long will break. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still generating front page news though, as in this announcement that the EU were to designate the IRGC a terrorist organisation. Black Kite (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Black Kite and scope of the protests, including death toll. There is the ICE operation (and protests), both in ongoing, and just two guys are dead (that woman and the man this week) vs. hundreds killed and others executed in Iran. CoryGlee 12:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EU designation, Trump bringing a second fleet and demanding Iran take action. It might have moved beyond the protests but this is clearly still in the news, and the article is including these additional updates, just not in the timeline section of that article. Masem (t) 12:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the 3 comments above. See the International reactions section of the article; the summary of 2026 Iranian diaspora protests could maybe get a bit more content. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral – Sentences and sections are still being added daily. On the one hand I like the idea of giving Ongoing a faster turn-over, but on the hand there's a bunch of articles on Ongoing that are way less active than this one. It looks to be a fine feature still, for now. The improvements and additions look good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal per same reasons stated in previous discussion; the EU designating the IRCG as a terrorist group is not especially notable, and Trump threatening other nations happens often enough at this point. The protests themselves may still be ongoing, but on a much smaller scale compared to when this was first posted to "Ongoing". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support removal as the previous nominator. I already thought it was overdue for removal when I nominated it and it is even more so now. Even the article itself (as of today) shows the protests having been quelled and the later parts of the timeline focus on the fallout. If we really need to keep this up just because of the protest fallout (which most opponents are implying), this also needs to be renamed to something like "Iran Crisis". --SpectralIon 16:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removal. Unfortunately still in the news daily and getting updates in part because of Trump’s actions and also because of the Iranian government. Agreed with Masem, Black Kite, and CoryGlee. -GhostStalker (Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 16:48, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as in prior discussion. The protests themselves are over and have been for a while now. Trump's "armada" is only loosely related to the protests. Trump's main goal is to force Iran into an agreement on its nuclear program, despite his occasional claims to care about the protesters. The EU's designation is not notable by itself. "Terrorist" designations get thrown around rather frequently. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    EvansHallBear – it is NOTAFORUM. Whether Trump wants to force Iran into whatever or not... is not to discuss here. Though I agree with your "terrorist" comment, that's a frivolous term, just imagine that some see Hamas as resistance fighters. So, I agree with the subjectivity of the label. CoryGlee 21:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors brought up the Trump armada and it is mentioned in the protest article. So it's completely in scope to question how directly it relates to the currently suppressed protests. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose With international coverage of Iranian crackdowns continuing, even since this nomination was made, it's still too soon. If anything there's more coverage of this, @GreatCaesarsGhost, than there was at the time of the previous nomination that literally just fell off this page! Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the nomination, many of the opposes votes were actually "wait" votes, and were over a week old when the prior nom fell off. I was one of them, so I'm not pushing for this strongly. But I do think we should move the target, because it seems the protests in Iran themselves have been over for quite a long time. Protest occurring elsewhere and US sabre-rattling seems to be a distinct story. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If they are over for some time, why is there media report of protests later this month, @GreatCaesarsGhost. There's also huge ongoing international media coverage about the planned estimated 30,000 dead protestors . One option is retargeting to 2026 Iran massacres. Nfitz (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to nominate that article for posting. But this is about the 2025–2026 Iranian protests. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are Iranian. They are protesting. The article was literally split off 2025–2026 Iranian protests a couple of weeks ago because of size limitations, @Coffeeandcrumbs. Nfitz (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article was split off, meaning that the ongoing's scope now only applies to protests in Iran itself (which have ended). If you want to talk about diaspora protests, nominate it to be added. SpectralIon 15:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it was split off because it was a separate subject, I think that may be a valid point. But it was split off because of page size. I generally oppose multiple links in ongoing; I feel we should be able to do most ongoings with only one or two words. Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So this article supposedly still relates to the diaspora protests and will be ongoing as long as they are despite it containing virtually no information on them just because the diaspora protests were split off due to a certain reason? SpectralIon 19:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nfitz (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. SpectralIon 16:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The diaspora protests are some of the biggest protests in history, in their respective locations. In Toronto the 150,000 protesters on Sunday is double that of the previous largest protest, late last century. And 15-times higher than the widely reported G20 protests/riots. These aren't the typical 100 people waving flags in front of an embassy. Nfitz (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But the main point remains; they're, different, articles. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 20:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How does "The diaspora protests are big." defend the claim of "This article which does not include info on the diaspora protests still relates to them." SpectralIon 21:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect @SpectralIon. Perhaps you are not aware that there remains an entire section in the article for the diaspora - 2025–2026 Iranian protests#Iranian diaspora. The section is SO long, it was split into a subarticle! Nfitz (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was split into another article. This "entire section" in the original contains exactly 1 sentence of prose and links to the other article that actually discusses this topic. SpectralIon 23:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of where the diaspora protests are documented, they are separate from (although related to) the main Iranian protests. Keeping the Iranian protests in ongoing in spite of the fact that they've ended is incredibly misleading. Iranian diaspora protests can be proposed separately if they are significant enough on their own. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
it is IN Iran and the above are not. Almost everyday there is some protest somewhere about something. The diaspora protests have no effect on anything.Psephguru (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Protests in Iran ended weeks ago. The last recorded protest was 13 January, nearly a month ago. It is incredibly misleading to keep this article in the "ongoing" section when it's literally not ongoing anymore. This isn't a matter of the article receiving frequent edits, because the edits are to various other parts of the article, and not specifically people editing in new information about new protests. There is an article covering an ongoing event in Iran: 2025–2026 Iran internal crisis. I am currently of no strong opinion as to whether that article should be in the ongoing section of the front page. But certainly, it has more desert than an article on protests that ended almost a month ago. Ditto for 2026 Iranian diaspora protests. The EU designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization does not justify pretending that protests inside Iran are ongoing. JasonMacker (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates&oldid=1336888432"