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.

Jesse Jackson in 1983 American civil rights leader Jesse Jackson (pictured) dies at the age of 84. The Nationalist Party, led by Tarique Rahman, wins the Bangladeshi general election. In the Barbadian general election, the Labour Party wins a third term and every seat in the House of Assembly. Shootings at a residence and a school in Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia, Canada, leave nine people dead. Ongoing: Russo-Ukrainian war timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Winter Olympics timeline Recent deaths: Frederick Wiseman Richard Ottinger Semen Gluzman Lowell Green Bishwa Bandhu Thapa Faʻaolesa Katopau Ainuʻu More current events Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — 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.

Section sizes Section size for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (44 sections) Section name Byte count Prose size (words) Header Total Header Total (Top) 357 357 0 0 Structure 446 446 43 43 February 18 174 174 1 1 February 17 125 125 1 1 RD: Doug Moe 827 827 0 0 (Closed) 2026 United States–Ukraine–Russia meetings in Geneva 3,438 3,438 0 0 (ready?) José Jerí impeached 6,499 6,499 0 0 Évariste Ndayishimiye AU chairman 6,704 6,704 0 0 (Posted) RD/Blurb: Jesse Jackson 14,779 14,779 0 0 February 16 125 125 1 1 RD: Avel Gordly 748 748 0 0 (Posted) RD: Frederick Wiseman 1,349 1,349 0 0 RD/blurb: Robert Duvall 32,981 32,981 0 0 (Posted) RD: Richard Ottinger 1,684 1,684 0 0 (Posted) RD: Semen Gluzman 1,809 1,809 0 0 February 15 125 125 1 1 (Closed) 2026 Cuban crisis 13,491 13,491 0 0 February 14 125 125 1 1 (Posted) RD: Lowell Green 1,156 1,156 0 0 (Posted) RD: Faʻaolesa Katopau Ainuʻu 1,338 1,338 0 0 (Posted) RD: Bishwa Bandhu Thapa 1,087 1,087 0 0 RD: Roy Medvedev 1,963 1,963 0 0 (Posted) RD: Nurcan Çelik 1,808 1,808 0 0 February 13 125 125 1 1 RD: Vicki Abt 573 573 0 0 RD: Tissa Vitharana 1,319 1,319 0 0 RD: Zaeem Qadri 1,172 1,172 0 0 February 12 125 125 1 1 (Posted) RD: Palmerston (cat) 2,631 2,631 0 0 (Closed) LHS 1903 18,456 18,456 0 0 (Posted) 2026 Barbadian general election 3,711 3,711 0 0 (Posted) 2026 Bangladeshi general election 4,382 4,382 0 0 (Posted) RD: Roy Face 1,636 1,636 0 0 (Removed) Ongoing removal: Operation Metro Surge 13,667 13,667 0 0 February 11 125 125 1 1 (Posted) RD: Helmuth Rilling 1,400 1,400 0 0 (Posted) RD: Mike Cruise 1,386 1,386 0 0 RD: Bud Cort 1,661 1,661 0 0 (Posted) RD: Pip Cheshire 1,232 1,232 0 0 (Posted) RD: Peter Meyer 1,010 1,010 0 0 (Posted) RD: James Van Der Beek 6,711 6,711 0 0 (Closed) El Paso 11,041 11,041 0 0 (Closed) 2026 Barbadian general election 3,177 3,177 0 0 References 802 802 0 0 Total 169,480 169,480 51 51

• Archives of posted stories

Nominator's comments: American basketball player and coach. —Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Impeachment of José Jerí (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ President of Peru José Jerí (pictured) is impeached by the Congress, just four months after assuming office. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ President of Peru José Jerí (pictured) is censured by the Congress, removing him from office just four months after assuming the position.
News source(s): Reuters, The New York Times
Credits:

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Juancarlosgonzales4 (talk · give credit) and Farcazo (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Article updated and well sourced --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait The Peruvian presidency is remarkably unstable and it's only 18 weeks since the last such event. We should wait for the appointment of his successor to minimise the number of postings we make about this. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wait – I didn't think of what Andrew did. Yes, it's better to wait for a successor in any case. I hesitantly support(ed) this because it is not new for Peru since 2016. But the article, if some tags are solved, passes the ITN threshold. Shouldn't the blurb be reworded? I understand that his impeachment meant removal. CoryGlee 21:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would have supported this, were it not for the fact that an impeachment takes place in Peru every couple of years. Better just wait for the succesor and combine this with the next leader. Gotitbro (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Per Andrew. I think we should post this, but better to do it as a combined blurb with the successor’s appointment. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 22:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The blurb needs to be more accurate. José Jerí was removed from office by a censure measure, not by an actual article of impeachment. CastleFort1 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is much the same regardless, the reason for the title and all previous ones. Gotitbro (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support, removal from office is significant. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is the third president to be impeached/censured in a Peruvian presidential term (5 years), which shows the Peruvian political crisis. Farcazo (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait Will change to support after a successor is decided upon. Article looks good. Ornithoptera (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait but support - Wait until a successor has been chosen (unless no clear successor is likely), but the article looks of good quality, and definitely of significance to post Elizaofchaos (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hold and post with interim President they knifed another one, huh? Let's wait till the succession is announced This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The removal from office itself is notable and in the news, we posted Trump's impeachments and also previous removals of the president in Peru. Don't see why this should be different. AusLondonder (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability of the removal alone (per AusLondonder), blurb can be updated with successor once chosen. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support What is most noteworthy and ITN-worthy today is the impeachment. The presidential succession is a consequence and there is no need to wait. We will update the blurb when we know who the new Peruvian president is today or tomorrow. The article on the impeachment is in good shape and ready to be posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't this ITNR? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think not, as no successor has been named. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:19, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Évariste Ndayishimiye (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Burundi's Évariste Ndayishimiye (pictured) takes over the rotating chairmanship of the African Union (Post)
News source(s): AU ANA
Credits:

• Nominated by Psephguru (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: EU is posted, so don't see why the larger AU shouldnt be. Psephguru (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Well, first of all the article hasn't been updated (indeed, it hasn't been edited since January). However, I don't think the two positions mentioned in the nomination are equivalent. This is a one-year rotating chairmanship, the President of the European Commission is an elected post and only happens once every five years (also, we last posted this in 2019 as far as I can see). Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. No, the equivalent EU position is not posted. The equivalent position is the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, which rotates among the member states. That is a different position to President of the European Council or President of the European Commission (yes the names are confusing), which are far more powerful, politically important, and elected for five-year terms. Chairperson of the African Union is a ceremonial position lasting one year, as stated in the first sentence of its article. That is not sufficient to justify a blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 14:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – "EU is posted, so don't see why the larger AU shouldnt be" — No. Despite the similar names, the two organizations are vastly different in nature and pseudo-sovereignty. EU member states are bound by EU law; the AU mostly acts as a regional forum akin to the UN. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd think the AU is more comparable to the OAS, which we've never posted AFAIK. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per all above. AU is more comparable to the UN, OAS, or even Council of Europe than it is the EU. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – As a pan-Africanist, I wish the AU was comparable to the EU, but alas, it is not. There are plans, wishes, dreams of creating a true AU by 2050, but we are not there yet. This is a ceremonial role, not even comparable to the Secretary-General of the UN. Notice, the seat is filled by the president of a member nation. If the role had any real power, I assure you they would not let any leader of a member nation hold it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We posted the Chairperson of the African Union Commission last year, which is the AU's CEO. Misleadingly, the Chairperson of the AU isn't all that important. The AU has a free trade agreement, and is behind on its plan to establish a monetary union (just today, the central bank is set to be in Nigeria "Cardoso, governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), says the country is set to play a central role in designing Africa’s future single-currency framework, following the African Union’s latest approvals on the African Monetary Institute (AMI)"). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That appears to be a different role than this, in any case. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:35, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We should treat the European Union and the African Union equally. -TenorTwelve (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What similarities other than the names commend this position to you, and to us? GenevieveDEon (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No love for the OAS @TenorTwelve? Should we treat that equally? What about USAN (UNARUR)? What about OIF? Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per ModestGenius. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Jesse Jackson (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American civil rights leader Jesse Jackson (pictured) dies at the age of 84. (Post)
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Eureka640 (talk · give credit), Qwerty123M (talk · give credit), ItsShandog (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (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.

 Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support one of the most significant civil rights leaders in the United States, by definition a transformational figure. TheFellaVB (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However I’m not sure why the proposed blurb reads “dies at 95”, he was 84, he also was never a lawyer either. Was this proposed blurb made by chatgbt? TheFellaVB (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TheFellaVB: no bots, involved. I had a brainfart. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Campaigner” still isn’t the right term for it, “Civil Rights Activist” describes him more than well enough TheFellaVB (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Probably copied from Duvall who did die at 95. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb. Now here is a death blurb that is a genuine candidate. I note there's a few citation needed tags dotted about, but that shouldn't be difficult to fix in such a well-cited article. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb The subject's article is already graded vital and B-class. And it leads by saying that he was a "prominent civil rights leader". The nominated photo doesn't seem right but there may be more choice. So, not quite as good as Robert Duvall but ample for a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

  I've amended the nominated picture, replacing it with the current lead photo, which seems more representative of the subject in his prime. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Transformative figure, article is extensively sourced. --PootisHeavy (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb – one-sentence death line is an issue that I hope will get improved, but the overall quality of the article easily balances that out. Health issues were clearly documented in the past years, for example. I'm seeing extensive news articles in local (Dutch) news, so ITNSIGNIF is easily met. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Blurb a very significant civil rights leader and politician, his death is a big news and is top of almost all major english news websites. LiamKorda 11:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Finally, a proper-blurb worthy candidate. ITNSIGNF definately met for the impact he had worldwide. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support blurb Significant civil rights leader, quality of the article is good. CN tags appear to have been resolved enough to warrant posting. CastleFort1 (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb on principle, oppose on quality There's a few lingering CNs, and the Awards and Recognition section being a list of single sentence paragraphs is poor. The Public Image section likely could be expanded to go on more about how significant he was as a civil rights leader but there's enough there to establish why he should get a blurb (but encourage any possible expansion there to help) Masem (t) 12:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support wholeheartedly. He was a significant figure in the Civil Rights movement and his passing has made international news. TigressDragonblade (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb B class level 5 vital article with 437 sources. Grimes2 12:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb per above. Legendary civil rights figure. RIP. Davey2116 (talk) 13:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Critically important civil rights icon in the United States. Also known for his 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns. Widely covered across media outlets. Article may not be in perfect shape but has a great depth of coverage and numerous sources. Master of Time (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb One of the most important figures in the civil rights movement, who remained an important figure in politics for several decades after. Easily deserving of a blurb. The article has a couple unsourced statements, but they are small enough and few enough to where I believe the article's current quality is sufficient for posting. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Duvall was by far more famous than Jackson, especially in the world. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it. Maybe internationally, but in America they were equal at best. Jackson also had much more of a real impact on society. I still think we should have posted Duvall (and we still might) but Jackson is definitely a more clear-cut obvious blurb case. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post blurbs based on fame, but on importance. And Jackson, in his time, had significant importance in the world, not just in the USA. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"And Jackson, in his time, had significant importance in the world" - what did he do, what office did he hold? What was he is remembered for in the world, was he ambassador to a country, did he head international organosation? BilboBeggins (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What impact? Reading the lead, the main thing I'm seeing as a lasting contribution is the founding of Rainbow/PUSH. But I'd not heard of it before and don't get the impression that it has been especially prominent or successful. Otherwise, there seem to be brief terms as a shadow senator and host of a CNN show. What was achieved in those? Looking at the US now, I'm not seeing it so the putative impact needs more explanation. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't post blurbs based on fame, or on importance. We post blurbs based on significance as indicated by breadth and depth of news sources, alongside article and update quality. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the points above - but Duvall more famous than Jackson? That's not what I remember in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s when these two were in their prime. Jesse Jackson was unique and big news all the time. Duvall was one of many actors - but never standing out from his many peers, and surely less international prominence - of even news coverage of his death. Nfitz (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we don't base on fame or similar because that ebbs and flows with time, whereas legacy doesn't change once established (outside of unique circumstances in someone like Bill Cosby). Masem (t) 16:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb No question. Highly influential activist and key figure in the civil rights movement. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Transformational [[1]] and there are multiple high quality RS that use variations of "transformational". Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per votes above. It seemed like he was one of the most important figures in civil rights. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb -- I took care of the last remaining citation needed tag. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Once the CN tags are addressed. Jackson is about the most “transformational” as you’re going to get. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Took care of the last remaining CN tag. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support per nom

ShallowC (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Randy Kryn (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Unique seminal activist and politician of international repute. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Monumental legacy in the civil rights movement. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Major civil rights leader and political leader who laid the groundwork for America’s first Black President. -TenorTwelve (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Fuzheado | Talk 17:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: First African-American woman elected to the Oregon Senate. Article is long enough and fully sourced. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is sufficiently sourced, looks ready for posting on RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American documentary filmmaker. Thriley (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Article needs more ref work done. Lead could also be expanded a bit such as listing his credits and more 'heft' as to why he's considered to be an influential documentarian. Support expanded article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD Fully referenced, appropriate depth (perhaps a mild over-reliance on direct quotations but nothing to impede posting). Spencer^T•C 07:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Robert Duvall (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  American actor Robert Duvall (pictured) dies at the age of 95. (Post)
News source(s): The Hollywood Reporter NBC News
Credits:

• Nominated by ItsShandog (talk · give credit)
• Updated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit), ItsShandog (talk · give credit), Rusted AutoParts (talk · give credit) and Andrew Davidson (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: American actor and filmmaker whose career spanned more than seven decades. ItsShandog (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality Article has some cn tags and an unsourced section that needs to be addressed. Duvall is a very highly influential actor as he’s appeared in several iconic films (two of which have been preserved by the U.S. government), is a 7-Oscar nominee (winning once), and is regarded to be one of the best actors of his generation (stated and sourced in lead). If a legacy section could be fixed up in the next few days that would be truly fitting for the article and for this reason I would support blurb TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The subject's article is already graded vital and B-class. And it leads by saying that "he is regarded as one of the greatest actors of all time". The photo is a professional one by Bernard Gotfryd and preserved by the Library of Congress. And they have such extensive lists of credits and awards that there are separate pages for them alone. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Duval's article is considered level 5 vital, which is the lowest category. There are over 50,000 level 5 vital articles. According to Wikipedia:Content assessment#Statistics there are 221,055 B-class articles. We can't be using that to determine who is and isn't deserving of a blurb. It's an extremely low bar. –DMartin (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Those numbers overstate the issue. A search I just ran indicates that there are only 3,420 BLPs at level-5 vital. Last year, ITN posted 15 level-5s which it can easily handle. They included Gene Hackman who seems quite a similar actor to Duvall and so is a reasonable precedent. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Hackman shouldn't've been posted either(as I argued then), we don't get to use past mistakes to justify continuing to make them. I'm sure Duvall was a very nice man, and he's clearly important to people of a specific generation from a specific country. That doesn't make his death an important news story.–DMartin (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Elsewhere, he was posted on the main pages of the French, German and Spanish language Wikipedias and on Wikidata's main page too. In the UK, his picture appears on the front pages of most of the quality press including The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent.

  The death now of Jesse Jackson shows the importance of posting such news quickly before it becomes stale. Most Wikimedia projects seem to understand this and act quickly. Only the English ITN seems to drag its feet. Tsk. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely the speed of the post of someone who is actually significant invalidates your argument, user:Andrew Davidson. I have no doubt that Jackson will be in the news for longer than Duval, who surely has already had his 15-minutes. I expect that if Jackson has a funeral that will be in the news - but I don't see anything about Duval's funeral. Also I struggle to see which major (or minor!) has already posted a blurb for Duvall - was there one you are thinking of? Nfitz (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• God please no one nominate this as a blurb. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Too late. An old man who used to be famous died, what could be more important that than‽ –DMartin (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Simply no case to be made for a blurb here. Appearing in popular films or handwaving labels such as best actor just won't cut it. Another trainwreck (and WP:POINTy) conversion of an RD nom into a blurb by Andrew. Gotitbro (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our lead's description is sourced. For another example, see the lead of Britannica's article which has In the words of critic Elaine Mancini, Duvall is “the most technically proficient, the most versatile, and the most convincing actor on the screen in the United States.” This has been picked up by multiple news sources such as France 24. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A famous actor dying and media picking it up does in no way show ITN significance, neither do singular critiques by films critics. I remember at the ITN nom for Redford, an editor made an extensive list of old Oscar-winning "greats" who might be featured for RD blurbs soon; even there Duvall did not feature. We are completely out of the depth for any RD blurb justification here. Gotitbro (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb per Andrew. ~2026-10483-74 (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready Sourcing needs work. I haven't made up my mind on a blurb yet. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made up my mind on the blurb. I support it, because the media coverage, filmography, and social media reaction I've seen all show that Duvall was a truly impactful actor who warrants a death blurb. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for the usual reason. Support blurb once article is up to scratch. Clearly one of the greats in the acting profession. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready as there is multiple citation needed tags. However, when they get fixed, I will vote for support blurb. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, support RD (once issues are sorted) A known actor yes but not sure hes had the same worldwide impact for a blurb. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  He was a legendary actor with a career that spanned over six decades. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That's hardly unique. There's a lot of "legendary" actors, and he was almost 100 years old. –DMartin (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But he was one of the best. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (citation needed). I think that's a matter of opinion but I do not believe he had the impact to justify a blurb beyond a few notable films. Plus I also oppose blurbing on the principle that initial RD nominations should not be hijacked into blurb nominations. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb. Can we please stop nominating every moderately successful actor for a blurb? Duvall had a good career, but he's far from the greatest living actor. Doesn't meet the Thatcher / Mandela standard for a blurb - which is much higher than everyone with an Oscar. I'll let others assess the quality for RD. Modest Genius ^talk 19:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose blurb for the usual reasons. We cannot be posting to ITN every time an elderly person who used to be famous dies. We have recent deaths for a reason.–DMartin (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not ready even for RD. Tons of CN tags. –DMartin (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Good actor starring in popular films, and nothing more to warrant a blurb. The article doesn’t seem to demonstrate any lasting impact in the field either. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. He was both Tom Hagen in Godfather and Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now. And played roles in Kill the Mockingbird, Eagle has landed, Bullitt, M.A.S.H, True Grit, Network, Gone in 60 seconds, Jack Reacher, The Judge, THX 1138 and numerous other films nominated for Oscar or award-winning. He starred in so many classic, legendary films that it is unbelievable. He has done not less in cinema than Robert Redford. BilboBeggins (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't work on precedent. Just because Redford's death was posted(under highly controversial circumstances) doesn't mean that we then have an excuse to post other moderately-famous old people. The fact that mistakes were mde in the past does not give us license to repeat them. –DMartin (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  its not fair to link to an AFD precedent to disqualify precedent at ITN. The bar may be ever changing, but precedent is one of the few objective qualifiers we have to go by. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but precedents are not a standard in that there is no official inclusion of these at ITN for future blurbs. A useful reference perhaps but definitely not an 'objective qualifier'. Gotitbro (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Otherstuffexists is only for notability. We don't have any strict rules for blurbing. That is why we always have in mind whom we blrubed before. Posting Redford was not controversial, Redford is golden standard for blurbing. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "golden standard", nowhere close and barely a borderline case with well sustained opposition grounded in ITN and enwiki policies. Gotitbro (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply starring in highly notable films is not a measure of being a major figure. And Redford did more outside of cinema which is why he was considered a major figure. Nothing of the sort can be documented for Duvall. Masem (t) 01:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb I have said this before. There are a lot of legendary, elderly American film actors that, sooner or later, will trouble ITN. Robert Duvall, in The Godfather Part II, starred alongside two of them, Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. We simply cannot blurb all of them and while Duvall had a great, much-awarded career, I see no reason to consider him a transformative, leading figure on the level of those two co-stars and a great many other US actors currently in their 70s, 80s and 90s. Humbledaisy (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's essentially why I'm on the fence. He's definitely an acting legend, but I'm not sure if he's at the level of De Niro. We will definitely be blurbing some of the actors, but I'm undecided on whether this particular one is at that level. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • ITN could easily post all three and many more. Note that that the French Wikipedia has already posted a picture of Duvall on its main page and the German Wikipedia has already posted an equivalent blurb in its main page obituary section [Robert Duvall (95), US-amerikanischer Schauspieler († 15. Februar)]. The problem here is not a lack of capacity; the problem is these dysfunctional debates which disrupt ITN's purpose of emphasizing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

    German Wikipedia's main page is organised differently, however, with a dedicated obituary section. It works more like our RD, with additional info on the deceased. Khuft (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    We know de.wiki posts RDs as short lines like that, that's not a blurb though, that's just a routine post for de.wiki. Also, we also must consider quality on en.wiki's version of ITN, I don't know how de.wiki does quality but just because they posted does not put any pressure on us to post. Masem (t) 21:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • The German format is on a separate line and gives five facts: name, nationality, occupation, age and date of death. An English blurb typically only provides four of those facts as it doesn't give the date. So, the German equivalent is not only more timely, it is also more informative. The Germans are famous for their efficiency. The English ITN is not. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      While I'm a fan of the German set-up, we've had these discussions here on the Talk page, and the consensus was for keeping the status quo for RD & Blurbs. No need to re-fight those fights on nominations. Khuft (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      No, talk page discussions indicated a consensus that RDs should be expanded to add more details, as the Germans do. The difficulty is that ITN is hopeless at getting things done. See design by committee. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "We simply cannot blurb all of them" WP:NOTPAPER. We don't need to think that if we blurb him, we can't blurb his other co-stars. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  NOTPAPER doesn't really apply here, space on the main page is limited. –DMartin (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Him being blurbed does not hinder the possibility to blurb others. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How does it not? There is a limited number of space for blurbs. –DMartin (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN does not post sets of a fixed size, like the other sections. Its entries scroll so there's no limit. Currently there are four blurbs and the bottom one is nine days old. So, that's an average of about half-a-blurb a day, which is too slow as it means that every other day, there's no change. ITN should post at least one blurb per day to stay fresh. Blurbing the deaths of such famous and vital people is an easy way of maintaining this rate. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  And who then will be able to see them, provided different time zones, before they roll of. The main page is barely popular and ITN is also not a WP:NEWSTICKER. Gotitbro (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard format for most main page sections is to post a daily set so that a given hook/blurb/article is up for one day. Sometimes DYK goes at double speed so that it's just half a day. While other related pages such as Deaths in 2026 and Portal:current events have a daily structure. So the day is the natural time frame which ensures that every time zone gets a chance to see the content.

  ITN is nowhere near this rate and so, for example, the Superbowl has been up for over 7 days now. Such over-exposure is undue because most people who care about such topics are already well aware of them. That's especially the case for ITN items because, by definition, they have just been in the news.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would argue that ITN sustenance outlasts all of them. Gotitbro (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose RD too many CNs and too much SEAOFBLUE in sections. Oppose blurb, no indication how he is considered a major figure in Hollywood. Simply winning a handful of awards is not sufficient. Masem (t) 21:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Blurb per Kiril Simeonovski and Humbledaisy. I get it that Duvall is beloved by many editors here, but we can't post every actor, and there are others from his generation that seem more transformational. Khuft (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  He is not like any other actor. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I get people who are film fans saying this, but to most people(especially those outside of the US) that just isn't true. –DMartin (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  C'mon, everyone knows Godfather, and napalm quote. It is part of the culture. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready for RD 11 cn tags. Neutral on blurb. Natg 19 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I honestly don't know much about Duvall (thus the neutral !vote), but do the opposers want to address why he is called "one of the greatest actors of all time" in the lede? That seems to me to indicate that he could be blurb-worthy. Natg 19 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment(already voted above) For those arguing precedent because of other actors posted, one could just as easily point out that we didn't blurb William Hurt, Paul Newman, Albert Finney, Andre Braugher, Bob Hoskins, or even Sir John Hurt. Do those not set the precedent that being a famous actor is not enough to be blurbed? –DMartin (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Andre Braugher is nowhere on the scale of Duvall's. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I feel that he is, and that's sort of my point that this is all subjective. –DMartin (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, sorry, objectively he didn't play any starring, or lead roles in films, let alone cinema-changing films, in which Duvall starred, having several of them (at least Network, Godfather part I and II, Apocalypse Now).

  Then try to look at objective metrics. BilboBeggins (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Braugher is a stretch in my

  opinion as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I checked and Paul Newman didn't even get discussed at ITN. That may have been because people were distracted by the financial crisis but, even so, ITN found time for the important news that "the Hawthorn Football Club defeats the Geelong Football Club". There was a nice rant that "it makes the encyclopedia appear to be written by high schoolers by not having something about this up there. I apologize for my frustration, but this adds to the perception that the encyclopedia is amateur". Plus ça change... Andrew🐉(talk) 00:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  2008 was a long time ago, and ITN wasn't anywhere close to what it is now. I doubt there was even such a concept as "blurbing" major figures back then. It looks like it was up to admins to decide whether to post something, with no system of !voting or consensus that we have now. And Hawthorne defeats Geelong never got posted (though this is ITN/R, and a similar story got posted in 2025). Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  ITN is much the same as it was back then. See the admin analysis which shows that many of the regulars go back to that period. We are all a bit older now but it's not clear that we're any wiser. And there's a new generation of high-schoolers too. It's my impression that the OMD contempt is coming from that young generation who naturally tend to be unfamiliar with the pre-WW2 generation that is dying off now. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb, award winning actor who played important roles in movies such as the Godfather and Apocalypse Now. Rest in peace. GodzillamanRor (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb - "American celebrity has died" is not really important international news. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Too much CN tags, neutral on blurb There are five citation needed tags in the article that prevent Robert Duvall from getting posted as an RD or as a blurb. I'm neutral to say whether Robert Duvall has enough weight in legacy to warrant a blurb. CastleFort1 (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb – As above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Iconic and much-honored figure whose passing is all over the news and easily blurb-worthy in my view. The anti-American commenters here are way out of line. Repeat: way out of line. One such who recently threatened to recall any posting administrator over a deadly North American storm was taken to AN/I and WP:CBANed. It’s time to consider warnings and escalating blocks, I feel, for disruptive anti-American statements which feed hate and discourage collaborative editing. And my thanks to Bilbo, Andrew and Quicole who all make excellent points in rebuttal to the “old man dies” crap. Those arguments carry no weight, as I see it, and are, again, disruptive, and worthy of sanction discussion. Enough. Jusdafax (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Iconic" and "honored" are not elements of being a major figure, that is what leads us to problems with blurbs for actors that are popular but do not have much more beyond that. And while it is true that we should not be accepting of attacking comments due to the person in question being American, we have to be aware that American entertain media figures are over-emphasized in English sources, and so we absolutely need to consider if this is being suggested as a blurb because of that media bias (I believe it is, just as it was for Betty White); that's not attacking any nation, which is something that we should strongly discourage, but recognizing the reality of news coverage that simply favors American entertainment coverage. This is how I read all the comments above that are opposed and bring up Duvall being American; its addressing the systematic bias. Masem (t) 02:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Editors should be sanctioned if they oppose my preferred ITN entries" is a very, very interesting approach. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your rewording of my statement, in quotes no less, is dishonest and offensive. Suggest you strike that. Jusdafax (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want to revise your position you can clarify what you meant. You were very specific. You called other contributors to this discussion "disruptive", their arguments "crap", and suggested "warnings and escalating blocks". 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve filed a report at WP:AN/I, and we can discuss your rewording in quotes there. Jusdafax (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "anti-American", good grief. WP:NOTBATTLE, WP:PA and on and on.

  For god's sake this is ITN. Please hold those horses lest you become ensnared in that stampede yourself. Gotitbro (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jusdafax: I haven't expressed a view here, so thought I could say how ridiculous your comments are. Please stop dismissing people who disagree with you and are concerned about systemic bias as "hate". You say he's "easily blurb-worthy in my view". in your view, which is fine, but please stop trying to silence other views with accusations of "disruptive anti-Americanism". AusLondonder (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb - a good actor sure, but if we blurbed every A-list actor who won a single national film award it would be extreme. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurb a great actor and sad that he is gone but he is no way near the popularity of the some of the other famous celebrities that we have blurbed in the past. LiamKorda 04:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb - Definitely a good actor, but this is not blurb worthy. Name the article in recent deaths where most others go. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb Great actor, but I wouldn't say he was transformative. And his nationality has nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, Robert_Duvall#Later_career_and_final_roles:_1990–2022 is missing a number of citations. Black Kite (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, Weak-oppose blurb – Excellent work on all the cleanup, but the content update is not significant enough to warrant blurbing. Quality and ITNSIGNIF are met (bar some citation-neededs), but update is not quite there yet. Two-sentence death section. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb – Winning awards is not sufficient to demonstrate a transformative legacy. Major actors will inevitably earn awards, as dozens are awarded yearly. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per Humbledaisy. Legendary, but not quite at that transformative level. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb - He's a very notable actor, but he died of old age and this isn't something notable for a blurb. Guz13 (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose RD because of entire paragraphs lacking citations in later career section. Oppose blurb as lacking the level of significance we typically require for such blurbs. Fame does not always equal significance. (From a huge fan of The Godfather.) --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Marking as ready for RD tag since all cn issues have been fixed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not ready. It is inappropriate to just tack on a citation for a last fact in a paragraph and hide the fact most of the paragraph is not verifiable in the references. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per many of the comments above. Not a person of international significance. Whether we like someone's acting work isn't one of the criteria, nor is views. Wizardman 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Served 8 Terms in U.S. House, article has no tags. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a tag because the "Early years" section was unreferenced.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:00, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Added sourcing, removed tag EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Well sourced and fleshed out. –DMartin (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 21:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Ukrainian psychiatrist and activist TNM101 (chat) 15:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well-sourced article, comprehensive enough. Yakikaki (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Might benefit from some cleanup, but sufficient quality for RD. –DMartin (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per DMartin. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as Ready. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:11, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Poasted Stephen 21:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Canadian Broadcaster, B-Class article. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:07, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced and comprehensive article. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One cn tag but otherwise well sourced article TNM101 (chat) 16:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Fixed a cn tag, other than that sufficient quality. –DMartin (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 21:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Samoan politician. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks sufficient. Thanks for nominating, Onegreatjoke. N Panama 84534 🏝️🥥 00:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well cited, sufficient quality. I'll look for a picture. –DMartin (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Nepali politician. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Prominent Soviet historian and dissident. I contemplated suggesting a blurb as they seem to be quite a major figure in their field but our article and picture seem lacklustre and the death doesn't seem to be getting a lot of attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not ready – "Life and career" section is missing many references. (And thank you for not nominating as a blurb this time.) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Turkish football player. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is sufficiently sourced. Quality is good for posting on RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is of sufficient quality for RD. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support @Admins willing to post ITN: article is ready and consensus to post. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Small detail nonetheless: the source only states that they learned of her death of Feb 14th (which is enough to qualify for RD), not that she died on that day. Maybe someone fluent in Turkish/knowledgeable with Turkish sources might be of help here, as I'm not sure if we should give that much precision in her death date otherwise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American sociologist. A critic of television talk shows. Obit published 13 February. Thriley (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Sri Lankan politician. Seemingly good but I don't know. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose Insufficient depth of coverage. Article could use additional depth regarding what he accomplished as a politician, rather than just a list of roles and election results. Spencer^T•C 04:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Ainty Painty (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Article is a stub and some citations are broken. JaxsonR (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence before the mention of his recent death was about his 2018 announcement to contest the general election. So what happened at this election? What happened between 2018 and his recent heart attack and death? Please complete the coverage of the subject's life and career. --PFHLai (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former Downing Street mouser Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Ought to give the sendoff to the cat, the article quality is fine for RD. CastleFort1 (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready – This article is all lede, no body text. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could say that the article lack a lede, which is not a disqualifier for RD. Mjroots (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lead section is a bare minimum for any Wikipedia article, I would still oppose on quality if one is not added. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:38, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article quality is sufficient, minimum length requirements are met. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good to go. Gotitbro (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets requirements. R.I.P. to the cat. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 13:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Ready Sufficient quality for RD.–DMartin (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW CLOSE

Accretion of !votes is occurring beyond the snow line. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:28, 15 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: LHS 1903 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ An unusual planetary system is discovered by astronomers using CHEOPS and TESS. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ An unusual planetary system is discovered which challenges the standard nebular hypothesis first conceived by Swedenborg and Kant.
News source(s): The Australian, BBC, CNN, El País, ESA, Euronews, France 24, Science,Scientific American, Reuters,. Times of India
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by Slovborg (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: It's a rocky planet Jim, but not as we know it! Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose unusual, but unimportant to life on Earth, and the blurb fails to specify how this is notable. Seems a prime candidate for DYK if it's eligible, though. Departure– (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to read the article, which explains that The planetary system of LHS 1903 is notable for its unusual architecture, which challenges traditional models of planet formation. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Then that should be communicated in the blurb. I'm not opposed to blurbing things that cause major changes in fields of science, but this article let alone blurb don't communicate how this discovery does that. "challenges traditional models of planet formation" just sounds like buzzwords. Departure– (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See the Nebular hypothesis for details of the main current model. That has lots of jargon too but it is a featured article. It may need revising now, in the light of this discovery. Note that it's also level-4 vital – the same standing as the ultimate fate of the universe! I'll suggest an alt which includes it as a link. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Article is just barely past a stub but as per Departure, there's no clear obviousness to why this is more than a curiosity. Masem (t) 13:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - While this configuration is unusual, it's certainly not unprecedented. I dislike the click-bait blurb, and while I am definitely not opposed to all astronomy (or even all exoplanetology) stories at ITN, contra Departure's objection, I don't feel that this comes close to the threshold I would want to see. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's true that it's not unprecedented; I was curious and went check if I can find any similar cases in planetary system architecture studies. There's a prior case of TOI-700 which has two Earth-sized planets exterior to a mini-Neptune (and another Earth-sized on an interior orbit), of comparable masses, even with similar commentary on how this architecture might have formed. There's also Kepler-80 and Kepler-102, which have an Earth-sized planet exterior to two/one mini-Neptunes, but in those two cases the exterior planet is also significantly smaller. LHS 1903 has a super-Earth exterior to two mini-Neptunes, all three of similar masses. Disappointingly I don't see that mentioned anywhere, in the discovery paper, or in the media reports. Slovborg (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was curious about that too so thanks for checking. Please can you tell us where these exceptions now leave the standard nebular hypothesis, as discussed above? Andrew🐉(talk) 16:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not really irreconcilable with it, but it certainly requires additional mechanisms at work; be it migration mechanisms which allow planets to skip each other (see here also: Nice model, which is the standard model of our own system's formation – which requires Neptune forming interior to Uranus before the orbits get reshuffled, possibly with a fifth giant planet getting ejected); or as mentioned by the discovery team, by allowing multi-stage formation where the final planet only forms after the volatiles have already been accreted (I have to say I'm not fully satisfied with their explanation, as I'd expect volatiles to accrete slower, not faster) – or perhaps dispersed by the young star's stellar wind which pushes the frost line further out? There's also a similar problem among the Galilean moons – Callisto's geology compared to Ganymede hints at it having formed much slower, meaning it retained much less primordial heat. Slovborg (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose trivial clickbait. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:SNOW. This continues the pattern of trivial news stories being nominated when they really shouldn't be. Unsure how "It's a rocky planet Jim!" is meant to convince us that this is notable. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See Star Trekkin'. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Interesting this indeed is, but I doubt ITN can convey the complexities through mere news headlines. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the current ITN blurbs, they don't convey the hidden complexities of those stories -- the background to the shooting; the political developments in Portugal; the fuss over the half-time show at the Superbowl. And they don't explain the complexities of Canadian gun law, Portuguese presidential elections or the intricate rules of American football. There's no way we can fit all that into a headline so we don't try. Hackneyed phrases are used instead so that ITN always has a grim, monotonous and stale appearance.

  ITN quite the opposite of DYK, which makes an effort to be fresh, varied and interesting and which works so much better. This story will probably end up there instead where it will be welcomed and appreciated rather than scorned and sneered at. So it goes.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 00:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Though with the rest of the blurbs you mention, they are standard WYSIWYG fare.

  I don't think this can be conveyed through an ITN blurb here and the reader would be clueless as to how the nebular hypothesis is "challenged" (already an unclear term) as neither of those articles mention each other.

  DYK is perhaps a better route here indeed, but I wonder how the hook et. al. would be decided there as well. Gotitbro (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Browsing, I soon found a similar astronomical topic which was nominated at DYK a few weeks ago. Several hooks were suggested and they went with:

• ... that Bienor (pictured) is a very long centaur in space?

The key difference is the complete lack of hostility in the process. The general presumption at DYK is that they are there to get articles posted. At ITN, the attitude seems quite the opposite. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you seem to hate ITN so much, and are so hostile to its processes and norms, why don't you just leave? If you think DYK is better, go there. Otherwise, you're wasting our time with pageviews, points, and bludgeoning. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:49, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do better than the "If you don't like it, leave!" cliché. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, though article should be enhanced to explain why this planetary set-up doesn't fit standard nebular hypothesis. I'm a firm believer that astronomic news should of course be featured on ITN, and a discovery that seems to upend (or at least require tweaks to) the standard planetary creation model we've all learned in school is a prime candidate for that (quality allowing). Khuft (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem being, beyond the blurb/headline, neither the sources nor the article provide how this would "upend (or at least require tweaks to) the standard planetary creation model". I wouldn't be surprised if this is entirely explained by the current model either. Gotitbro (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  As discussed on the article's talk page, Slovborg has returned to expand the article, having now read and digested the main paper. Substantial updates have been added, including

  The system is an important test case for the theoretical models of planet formation. A gap feature in observed radii between the super-Earths and mini-Neptunes, called the radius valley, can be explained by different processes.
  ...
  The two models predict a similar location of the radius valley, making validation of either model over the other hard. The planet LHS 1903 e is so far the strongest case for a planet which must have formed according to the gas-depleted formation model. This is also similar to the models previously invoked to explain the formation of the Earth and the rest of the inner planets.

  Now, Slovborg clearly understands this better than most of us but is perhaps still absorbing the detail. It would be good to get input from other astronomy experts such as Mike Peel and Modest Genius too. The latter says that they are "part of the editorial staff of Science" and so should be especially well-informed.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not my area of research, but the fact that it's been published in Science indicates that it's highly likely to be newsworthy. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not news. Good DYK candidate This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I first came across the story while browsing CNN, which is a mainstream news site. It was listed with a variety of stories in a sidebar and I drilled down because it seemed the most interesting. The news has been triggered by a paper in Science which is a top-tier journal. A lot of institutions were involved – the paper lists 170 names – and many of them have announced the story on their sites. For example, I found the picture at the European Space Agency's announcement, established that it had a CC licence and so uploaded it and added it to the article. The story has naturally been picked up by the popular science press such as New Scientist and Scientific American. And it now appears in a variety of international newspapers such as El País and Times of India. It's still spreading so maybe there will be more.

And note that, since I nominated this, there haven't been any other nominations apart from a couple of minor RDs. So, we're not spoilt for choice, are we?

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

we get it ~2026-99312-9 (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time again, @Andrew Davidson, you've been told that needing newer material on the ticker is NOT a reason to start nominating otherwise B-list stuff. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this because it was in the news, as I explained and have proven. Orbitalbuzzsaw says that it's not news but offered no evidence to support their counterfactual. And it's not B-list news because Science is one of the best journals.

So, Nfitz's complaint does NOT fit the facts. If people make false claims, they should expect to have them fact-checked. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Science has a dozen+ articles a month. Most will be B-list or C-list in respect to posting here. But my point is that one of your justifications to post this, is that there wasn't much new material being posted. That is NEVER a criteria. Nfitz (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - agree that this may be better in DYK. I'm not seeing much coverage on this - as cool as it may be. Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't see anything particularly groudbreaking about this exoplanetary system. I mean, yeah sure, it has an odd distribution of densities---a collection of mini-Neptunes with a rare outer planet in the radius gap. But it's not a huge leap for astronomy if you get what I mean (e.g. the discovery of a bunch of habitable-zone planets in TRAPPIST-1, the discovery of the first planet around a Sun-like star, etc.). I've seen arguably weirder exoplanet discoveries like nu Octantis b, which did not get into ITN. And to counter the nom's argument that being published in the journal Science gives it merit---there's a lot of discoveries posted in prestigious journals like Science (like nu Oct, case in point) and Nature but do not make it into Wikipedia's ITN. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Close I do not see a consensus to post forming. Bremps... 03:45, 15 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.

Article: 2026 Barbadian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the Barbadian general election, the Barbados Labour Party led by Mia Mottley (pictured) wins a third term and every seat in the country's House of Assembly. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Rushtheeditor (talk · give credit)
• Updated by CastleFort1 (talk · give credit) and Borgenland (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.

 Rushtheeditor (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for improving quality Focus on updating results. The vote counting by Kevz Politics that used to be 25.1% counted on the night of 11 February has now been about finished. Adding results should utilize sources from Barbados Today and the previously mentioned Kevz Politics source. CastleFort1 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support article could use some work, but the results are in, and have been reported on. Scuba 03:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The election is ITNR, so !votes should focus exclusively on quality. The article is already presumed to be important enough to post. And is this case the article is someone lacking in quality at the moment. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:26, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware, I felt that it was sufficient, if a bit bare-bones, for inclusion at the time. Scuba 02:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support With major updates, the article now fulfills the checkmarks for sufficient article quality for posting on ITN. The header was amended, background was added, and the campaign section was expanded. A result prose exists, alongside seat tables and results by constituency. Both domestic and international reaction sections are also good in quality. CastleFort1 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Article is updated / of sufficient quality. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support article looks pretty good. Ready to go _-_Alsor (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. Spencer^T•C 03:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2026 Bangladeshi general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Bangladesh Nationalist Party, led by Tarique Rahman (pictured), wins the 2026 Bangladeshi general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Bangladeshi general election, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party led by Tarique Rahman (pictured) wins a majority.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the 2026 Bangladeshi general election, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which is led by Tarique Rahman, wins a majority vote.
News source(s): https://www.reuters.com/world/china/bangladesh-votes-landmark-election-after-gen-z-revolution-2026-02-11/
Credits:

• Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk · give credit)
• Created by Number 57 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Raihanur (talk · give credit), Ahammed Saad (talk · give credit), CastleFort1 (talk · give credit) and Loyal luz (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: While results haven't fully come in it yet, it's pretty apparent through the vote count that the BNP won. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support results are in, and are being reported. Article also looks updated. Scuba 03:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support updated article. Veritasphere (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks ready to me. Sdkb ^talk 05:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The results have been announced, and it is quite significant, also being the polling day for a referendum on reforms, and the country’s third leader in three years too. Kknnkj (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sàádî (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]