In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal

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.

Ōfunato wildfire A wildfire (pictured) in Japan's Iwate Prefecture becomes the largest in the country in at least five decades. Chinese architect Liu Jiakun is awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize. The United States imposes—and later partially delays—tariffs on Canada and Mexico and increases tariffs on China, incurring retaliatory tariffs from Canada and China. Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost soft-lands on the Moon as part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program. Ongoing: M23 campaign Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Hazel Nell Dukes James Harrison Christopher Hughes Anike Agbaje-Williams Bernhard Vogel Betsy Arakawa Nominate an article

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

 Natg 19 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: IM-2 (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ IM-2 (Nova-C) lander loses contact with NASA and Nova-C controllers. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ IM-2 touches down on the surface, communicating to earth, but might be on its side.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Intuitive Machines's IM-2 Athena soft-lands on the Moon as part of NASA's Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.
News source(s): CNN
Credits:

• Nominated by Shaneapickle (talk · )
• Created by Thistheyear2023 (talk · )

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.

• Oppose due to it being too soon. Likely that Athena toppled over just like Odysseus, but all we know now is that Athena is sending some data as far as I can see in this CNN live update, that's limited to just reporting that the Athena is generating power. Scuba 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alt2 landing was actually a success, ITN/R
• Oppose Watching the feed, I didn't see any indication that they lost contact. Though it does seem that it is again on it's side. WAY too soon. Nfitz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They did lose some of the lander's contact due to the fact 1 of the two radio antennaes shut off. Shaneapickle (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's looking increasingly likely that it landed too close to a boulder that is blocking the sun, and radio signals, on one side of the lander resulting in a loss of power... or it tipped over. But it never went out of contact unexpectedly. Scuba 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for confirmation that the lander has in fact is on its side, we should really avoid preemptively saying anything about the lander before more information is released. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until more information is known. We're not a breaking news service. ITN shouldn't put a blurb on the Main Page until the outcome of the landing is clear - and the article has been updated accordingly. Did it crash, land safely, or something in between? Modest Genius ^talk 19:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb 2 per more recent updates. Fairly important mission that I think deserves an ITN mention. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 23:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the updates say there is some communication and experiments on board are running, but if it did land or topple on its side, like IM1, I don't know if we'd call that a successful landing for ITNR. Masem (t) 23:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can see, it hasn't toppled over, it's just angled away from the sun so it isn't getting a full charge. Scuba 00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't know how it's oriented outside of the poor solar charging, and it will be a few days before any craft will be ae to sight it and conform. — Masem (t) 00:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Turing award. ITNR. Announced on this date. Ktin (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as all linked articles seem to be in good shape(though I must admit I understood very little of the last one). Barto and Sutton's articles do need to be updated to reflect the award. –DMartin 05:38, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American jazz-funk vibraphonist, record producer and composer. 240F:7A:6253:1:1088:1DCE:94DC:C5B (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article's referencing needs work, some information has no source. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried my best to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards by changing the language used anyway, but it's a very brief article for a very long career, and I'll admit that the wording is still clunky. Joe Vitale 5 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks pretty well-sourced to me. I however Oppose because the circumstances of the death don't warrant a blurb. 675930s (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've not asked for a blurb. Secretlondon (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD. 675930s (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, everything appears to be cited well and is updated Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as article is in decent shape. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: the law practice section isn't adequately sourced in my opinion.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed that and one other unsourced claim. –DMartin 23:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Looks good now.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, he seems important, however a few sections of his article could definitely use more citations User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 20:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I'd be prepared to call this ready. –DMartin 23:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Natg 19 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Some of the awards are not referenced. Grimes2 (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is good enough now. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: I'm inclined to prefer Alt2, but it may be too long. Feedback appreciated. –DMartin 00:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can Jiakun's article be expanded? May have to look to other language wikis, but that feels woefully short for this recognizition. --Masem (t) 02:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Ktin (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the original or alt1 blurb; alt2 is too wordy. ITNR and the article is in decent shape: updated and adequately referenced. I've just added two {{clarify}} tags, but those aren't vital. It's unfortunate we don't have more images of his work, but that can't be helped. Modest Genius ^talk 11:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  PS. the image has been tagged as lacking licence information, so seems likely to be deleted. Best not to use it. Modest Genius ^talk 14:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb 1, seems like a decent article and a fairly important award in architecture. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 13:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb 1 or original blurb. This is basically the Nobel Prize for Architecture. Article is a bit short, but fine. Khuft (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 21:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha, had an edit conflict trying to post this item. Schwede66 21:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And somebody added me to the credits; I shall state that my article edits were of cosmetic nature only. Schwede66 21:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Ōfunato wildfire (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ A wildfire in Japan's Iwate Prefecture grows to become the largest in the country's history. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ One person is killed in the largest wildfire in Japan's history.
News source(s): Japan Times, BBC, NYT,
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Harrz (talk · )
• Updated by AlphaBetaGamma (talk · )

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Largest wildfire on record in Japan, being covered by countless international news sources such as ABC News, Al Jazeera, CNN, Reuters etc. as well as extensive coverage in Japanese news. Note: most news sources are describing it as 'the largest in decades', however, this fire is now over double the previous fire's size - the Japan Times source states that "that fire burned 1,030 hectares, the previous record". harrz ^talk 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb Relevant enough. ArionStar (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this point. There are multiple wildfires going on across the globe and in terms of scale this is not large (even if largest for Japan). Masem (t) 15:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb We regularly post American and Canadian wildfires which do not even come close to breaking the national record, I see no reason not to post the largest wildfire in Japanese history, especially when the impacts of the fires (mass evacuations) are prompting global coverage (NYT, BBC, etc). Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb, this appears to be a very notable event and the largest in Japanese history. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 18:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb -- the biggest wildfire in a country's history can be reasonably considered internationally notable to some extent, and it's not like we don't post all the national elections results. Plus, the photo is good. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb Biggest wildfire in the a country's history, good photo. –DMartin 00:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb. Reasonably fleshed out, immediate wide-scale effects that indicate likely notability under WP:NEVENT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support original blurb as per above. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 04:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb issue - "for at least five decades" is future-tense, and we don't know what'll happen in the next five decades. The word "in" was probably the better fit than "for," as that indicates the better-known information: that it exceeds the size of all known wildfires in the area during the past 5 decades. Nottheking (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks done. This was also reported on ERRORS. The current blurb has "becomes the largest in the country in at least five decades." Natg 19 (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Occupied several of the most important political functions in France for the better part of 20 years. --Procrastineur49 (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support: Needs a few more citations, but good enough IMO. MT₍₇₁₀₎ 13:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Bibliography needs citations or ISBNs. Some paragraphs and claims also need citations. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Involves multiple countries and billions of dollars. It is possible the target article is not appropriate, since China is not a subject there. Second Trump tariffs could also be a target article, but that article is broader since it mentions the European Union and other countries. Banedon (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the tariffs already get posted in February? 675930s (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the blurb was nominated but not posted because they didn’t go into effect in February Hungry403 (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment US has been in trade war with China since 2018, and this is even analysed in research papers (see Fajgelbaum & Khandelwal, 2022, Caliendo & Parro, 2023 and Alessandria et al., 2024). Also, note that the Biden administration didn't reverse the tariffs imposed by the First Trump administration, and even imposed additional tariffs on China in May 2024, which went into effect in September 2024 (CNN). So, China should be excluded from the blurb as this isn't really new, and the nomination should focus on whether the imposed tariffs on the neighbouring countries are notable enough.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support posting. This was nominated in February but consensus was to wait until the tariffs take effect. Disagree with excluding China because the new tariffs on China are a lot larger than the old ones and will significantly disrupt global supply chains. ITN historically neglects economic news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.200.171 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until we know they go into effect. Blurb also needs to add that at least Canada has stated intent to tariff US goods in retaliation, as from last time, its the fact it was escalating into a trade war was the reason many supported posting. There's still hours before this could happen and things could change so just wait until we have an official word on this. --Masem (t) 12:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Canadian counter tariffs are already in effect - and took effect last night, User:Masem at the same time the USA ones took effect. I'm not sure what you are waiting for. The first round of the Canadian tariffs aren't as extensive, but targeted on vulnerable, mostly luxury, items and states. The second round in about 3 weeks will be more extensive - but I don't think we should wait for that. Nfitz (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadnt caught they started at midnight (both ways) so yes, there is no wait needed now. — Masem (t) 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb — Tariffs on China are also relevant, though maybe don't need to be bolded. I proposed an altblurb that includes that Canada and China imposed retaliatory tariffs (both of which have entered force, alongside the U.S. tariffs, about five hours ago as of writing). Wording can be changed to "all three countries" if Mexico imposes retaliatory tariffs of its own, which is highly likely, and Mexico's president Sheinbaum is expected to announce them in her news conference this morning. DecafPotato (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt blurb. This is a significant shake-up to geopolitics. I prefer the alt blurb, as it uses the active voice; the use of passive voice in the original blurb strikes me as a bit weasel-worded. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - alt blurb - but is "trade war" the best description? The Americans have been clear that it will use economic coercion as a weapons to force Canada to become part of the USA. That makes this an act of war. On the other hand, the description is more apt for the other 2 nations. Nfitz (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support altblurb but I'm not sure if China should be included, that's been happening for ages now. Oppose using any other phrase than "trade war" since we shouldn't really put too much trust on what could very well be posturing. Yo.dazo (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support, this will have long-lasting and most likely devastating consequences on the economy, if this isn't important and ITN I don't know what is. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 14:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Top of the headline news. ArionStar (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why not mention the EU tariffs? I've added it to an altblurb. Bremps... 17:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support posting, though exclude China as it's only an escalation as opposed to the start of an entirely new trade conflict. Bremps... 17:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we should mention tariffs on the EU unless they actually go into effect; right now Trump has just said he might/will impose them and hasn't even set a date. DecafPotato (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  D'oh, I thought the US imposed them already. Bremps... 19:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support, and also prefer altblurb 2 per Bremps. The Canada/Mexico/EU tariffs are the start of a new trade war, and are more uniquely notable, whereas the tariffs on China are a readjustment to an already existing trade dispute. Better to make clear to the reader the most central development: a new trade war has begun amongst the Atlantic powers. Flip^andFlopped ツ 17:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And to be clear, I agree with others above that the term "trade war" should be used in the blurb. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support major escalation, also added alt blurb 3 to specify the allied status/insanity of this action Udder1882 (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support Incredibly prominent news. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Most participants did not oppose the inclusion of the Chinese tariffs or only weakly opposed, and the same was true for the "trade war" wording, for which the only voiced opposition touched on using stronger language. EU tariffs are only a threat for now, so not included. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull or modify to altblurb 4 Per the Toronto Star and NYT, Trump has essentially reversed the tariffs. Only a narrow minority of exports that are not currently governed by the USMCA agreement will still be tariffed, and even among those exports, he's lowered it to 10% on anything energy-related or all potash-based goods. The current blurb has now become misleading. Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a "narrow minority": 50 percent of imports from Mexico and 62 percent of imports from Canada will still face the tariffs. (per inverted US gov figures from ABC); "imposes and partially suspends" is my preferred wording. "Reverses" falsely implies that billions of dollars of goods entering the US are not still facing 25% taxes and also ignores that Canada's retaliatory tariffs are staying in place for now as well. DecafPotato (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've implemented an update using "delays" instead of "suspends", which could be misinterpreted as the US suspending some pre-existing tariffs while imposing new ones, which isn't the case. In addition to the federal tariffs still in place, multiple premiers have indicated provincial retaliatory measures will remain in place until the tariff threat is ended (including Ontario's 25% surcharge on energy to the NE USA). It hasn't changed significantly to pull in and of itself, and we would need consensus here to do so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about her father needs a reference. It might be in the Daily Telegraph obit, which I don't have access to. Secretlondon (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Italian actress and film director. 240F:7A:6253:1:697D:BDE:6248:9BF (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Orange tagged and the filmography section is largely unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Has a fair amount of CNs but hope to work on this soon. Natg 19 (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be good to go. Needs a review. Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good enough. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 09:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Needs work. Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Publications section may need some cleanup, but overall looks fine to me. Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth has citation needed tag. Secretlondon (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to just use birth year, which is unambiguous. Natg 19 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the cite error. Secretlondon (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Scottish artist; article in pretty good shape SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support — good, well-written article with extensive history & supplementary article surrounding one of Scotland’s highest selling paintings ever Hauntbug (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything looks sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - No issues ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 23:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good, clear article. I have expanded details of his death with everything currently known, for fullness - i.e. location, when he was discovered, who announced his death (his publicist), lack of suspicious circumstances, and publicist's comments on his passing (via The Guardian). Montezuma69 (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: His blood donations saved the lives of over 2.4 million babies. -Abhishikt (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article seems to be of adequate quality. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Flip^andFlopped ツ 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article's sourcing and length appears to be of adequate quality for ITNRD. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 13:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 22:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: German Minister-president (Rhineland-Palatinate, Thuringa) Grimes2 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, meant to help but find it short but fully sourced. He was the only person heading two German States, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Sourcing and citations are good, but it feels as though there could be some additional information added to the article. Cheers, atque supra! Fakescientist8000 11:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good enough ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Fine article. Yakikaki (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and tagging ready. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 04:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 97th Academy Awards (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ At the Academy Awards, Anora (director Sean Baker and star Mikey Madison pictured) wins five awards, including Best Picture. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ At the Academy Awards, Anora (director Sean Baker pictured) wins five awards, including Best Picture.
News source(s): The New York Times
Credits:

• Nominated by ElijahPepe (talk · )

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.

 elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per ITN/R. –DMartin 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good quality article. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We also have this image (thumbnail right), with both Sean Baker (Best Director) and Mikey Madison (Best Actress in a Leading Role) if we want to feature both of them as the two named winners (though the photo may be a bit wide for the limited in-the-news space). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:05, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with Ham, this is way better. –DMartin 04:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 per Supes. And a fine main article. – SJ + 05:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality In Memorandum section is not sourced Masem (t) 04:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed Thanks for pointing that out. –DMartin 04:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fernanda Torres deserved it but good prose overall. ArionStar (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting, looks good now. --Tone 07:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It was posted with a link to a dab page! And then someone moved it, while it was on the main page! I've tidied up but none of this was urgent as we are not news. Secretlondon (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Since Baker won four Oscars, is the parenthesis when using his photo going to somehow address this, or just the biggest two (Best Director, Best Picture co-winner)? Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 – anlztrk (talk | contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Discography is unreferenced. Secretlondon (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Discography has been attended to, but I had to place seven citation needed text in the prose. Schwede66 02:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is the discography really fine? Most of it is cited to Discogs which is user generated and considered generally unreliable on RSP. 139.164.154.34 (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Blue Ghost Mission 1 (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ First commercial Moon lander Blue Ghost by Firefly Aerospace lands successfully ()
Alternative blurb: ​ Firefly Aerospaces Blue Ghost becomes the first successful commercial Lunar lander.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Firefly Aerospaces Blue Ghost successfully lands on the Moon as part of the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.
News source(s): https://plus.nasa.gov/scheduled-video/firefly-blue-ghost-mission-1-lunar-landing/
Credits:

• Nominated by Abhishikt (talk · )

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.

 -Abhishikt (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this is cool but i feel the blurb is kinda oddly written. im an ESL myself mayhaps someone could rewrite it to sound less odd? Udder1882 (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not important enough. This is not the "First commercial moon lander" it's the "First ... moon lander ...by Firefly Aerospace". Big for them maybe but not big enough for ITN. Nigej (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an ITN/R event, even if it was mistakenly nominated with a blue box rather than green. So its importance is automatic; this page isn't the place to discuss whether an editor feels it's important or not. Nottheking (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with blurb 'Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost becomes the first private spacecraft to land successfully on the Moon.' Celjski Grad (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not true, IM-1 predates it. Masem (t) 17:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not according to many sources.[10][11][12] Celjski Grad (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Second is a press release so not a reliable source. Third states this "The first mission by Astrobotic last year suffered a catastrophic failure of its propulsion system prior to its scheduled landing attempt. The second, operated by Intuitive Machines, got its Odysseus lander to the surface in February last year; though it tipped over on landing, the instruments it delivered remained fully functional." Masem (t) 18:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not debating this here anymore. I'll point out that "tipped over on landing" is a strange indication of success, and if numerous NASA press releases can act as sources, so can one from Firefly. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully functional perhaps - but many payloads were unable to complete their mission. Or even be deployed. Some others were unable to be deployed because of the complexity of the emergency landing. Also with not enough sun for the solar panels, the entire lander failed after only 7 days. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The qualification is that Odysseus was not a successful landing mission: the tipping over precluded many of its objectives, though naturally, it was in the company's best interests to stress what objectives were able to be accomplished in spite of its failure on landing. The lander's electronics failed (and contact was lost) about a week after touchdown as a result of its orientation, meaning it only achieved approximately half of its design life of 14 days post-touchdown. So this is a difference of "partially successful" vs. "successful." Nottheking (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether true or not (as brought up by Masem), we need to at least be internally consistent. The IM-1 article currently says in the lead: IM-1 was the first commercial mission to successfully soft-land on the Moon. Hence, a proposed blurb cannot say that this is the first commercial Lunar lander. Either the article, or the blurb, has to change. Schwede66 00:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  would suggest adding mention of the soft-land in the blurb. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt made an alt that fixes the problems with this nomination. Scuba 20:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• strong oppose per Nigej. Sportsnut24 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The BBC says that it was second and clearing up this confusion seems essential before we post a "first". Andrew🐉(talk) 21:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe this is now fully addressed two points up. And even if true - how is it relevant with ITN/R already met? Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the issue remains. Multiple respectable media such as the BBC and CNN describe this is being second. Where the claim of being first is reported, it is attributed to the press release rather than being stated as a plain fact. So, as this is commercial and promotional in nature, we should just say that the probe landed without stating claims of first/second in Wikipedia's voice. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is actually ITN/R. The ITN/R criteria for space exploration has become vanishingly small, but a soft landing on the Moon is one of the few events that qualify. Hence, there should be no discussion on editors' personal subjective opinions on how important the subject matter is, but rather as for whether the article itself is of quality for ITN. Nottheking (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have struck those !votes that oppose on grounds of importance to reflect ITN/R. Andrew Davidson is presumably opposing the blurb wording, and that is within the rules. Schwede66 00:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking !votes seems too heavy-handed. ITN/R is just a guideline and so explicitly says that "exceptions may apply". We had a huge fuss previously about this when several editors felt that a launch was not actually significant. IIRC a rules hardliner who refused to accept that there might be exceptions was banned from ITN after the matter was taken to ANI. That case established a precedent that opposition to such space stories may be legitimate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I hear you. I've self-reverted. Schwede66 23:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a flurry of such moon probes this year. IM-2 launched four days ago and is scheduled to land in just three days from now. And there's a Japanese probe in transit too which is planned to land in April. ITN is going to look weird if it's full of moon probes powered by ITN/R. At some point, we have to raise the bar again. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strange that two in one year is a "flurry," (and if this article is still on the FP when that occurs, we can easily put the two together) yet we have a minimum of 14 different Football & Rugby ITN/Rs each year. (with another 8 that take place every few years) It would seem that some would argue that anytime an INT/R without a fixed recurrence date does show up, folk will make the argument that the condition should be removed. the vast majority of the Space Exploration category was already removed, and at that rate there'll soon be nothing left. The point of ITN isn't to be a ticker for which heads of government are in and out, but to actually cover what's "in the news." Nottheking (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's more than two. For example, we just had three in transit at the same time, which is new. And there's more. See List of missions to the Moon which shows that lunar exploration is ramping up to a level not seen since the 1960s.

  But I'll grant this is more significant than the football which is mostly just routine ritual.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 16:09, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is a bit short but I don't see any citation issues. By the way, I modified the template to mark this as ITN/R. Whether this is the first or second commercial moon landing can continue to be discussed. --SpectralIon 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support groundbreaking-ish accomplishment for the private sector. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Could we maybe add File:Blue Ghost Mission 1 rendering.jpg or File:Blue Ghost On Moon.jpg as an image? –DMartin 04:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The rendering seems fine so I've added it. It's ironic that being commercial makes the mission more difficult to report. If they want coverage, they should release CC images too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I saw a few opposes last time I checked this, then realized it met ITN/R. It would appear that I was beaten to the punch. Oh well. qw3rty 09:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above (and it still hasn't tipped over). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Added Altblurb2 which avoids the question of whether it qualifies as a "first". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support First lander of 2025, and reported on by various different news stations, has notability. It has to go on the In the News due to ITN/R. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ALT2 per ChaoticEnby. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Any successful space landings are a plus from me. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ALT2 amended by the word "soft". Schwede66 23:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would remove the word "successful" as it is implied by "soft-landing". Ca ^{talk to me!} 09:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Head of the House of Gruzinsky (disputed claim to the defunct throne of Georgia), also known for being a director. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A third of the biography section is just an anecdote about him meeting an Estonian politician. Overall the quality needs a lot of improvement before this is ready for the main page. Yakikaki (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: English guitarist from Badfinger. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Discography section is mainly unsourced. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Discography section is now fully sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready -- Didn't see any citations for the disbanding of Gary Walker & The Rain, and couldn't find one to add on a quick search. The article looks ready otherwise. Count this as support after that is cited. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 18:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence has been adjusted and a source added. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreferenced date of birth. Schwede66 02:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Two sources added. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American civil rights activist. Article appears to be reasonably well-sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Citations throughout. Rater says B-class. The article should probably be renamed Hazel Dukes with the longer version of her name as a redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Only cn tag has been corrected, article is in good shape. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 18:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 00:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American R&B and soul singer. Former member of The Sequence. Died on March 1, death widely reported.   Jalapeño   (u t) 08:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a death is rarely put in ITN, unless its an assassination or a death of a world leader Rynoip (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Doesn't rise to the level of significance required for a death blurb and while a traffic accident is not "old person dies of old age" I'm not seeing any evidence that the death is the main story here. It's not ready for RD due some uncited prose and a complete lack of citations in the discography, filmography and awards sections. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to RD nomination This essentially a RD nomination but blurb can be discussed regardless. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb as tragic as this is I don't think this person meets the threshold of fame for a blurb. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blub Not transformative in her field (didn't even win a Grammy). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready for RD -- usual problem of citations in discography/filmography/awards. ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 18:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American singer, songwriter, and actor. The lead singer of the New York Dolls. Death announced 1 March. Thriley (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I've orange-tagged the article as significant portions are uncited. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:59, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Prominent Hong Kong singer-songwriter. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am expanding the biography at the moment. The biography is short, probably stubby, with much of the content unsourced, i.e. discography section is mostly unsourced. Although there is a tag stating to expand from the Chinese Wikipedia, the sourcing there is not ideal. Thus the expansion may take a couple of days. I am leaving an orange tag, which I may eventually remove upon completion of the expand, giving a suggestion for others to help to expand his article at where possible. – robertsky (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot content have been added to the article over the last few hours by many editors. There are still the awards section uncited for now. Making good progress. – robertsky (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Awards and nominations" section is orange-tagged. Lots to do there; otherwise it's good. Schwede66 02:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: A former Spanish footballer who played for Real Madrid. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. The article is a stub. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to post now will not develop. WP:SNOW close. – robertsky (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2025 (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: Skype (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ Microsoft plans to retire Skype, a long-standing video calling and messaging application, in May 2025. ()
News source(s): DW, Bloomberg News
Credits:

• Nominated by Justanothersillyboi (talk · )

Nominator's comments: Even if its userbase has shriveled in the past few years, this marks the end of an era for a platform that has played a significant role in Internet communications since 2003, and impacts millions of users worldwide. Justanothersillyboi (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until May 2025 when it's actually discontinued. E_F⁵ 00:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - for all intents and purposes this rebranded as Teams last decade. Nfitz (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though interesting, we do not usually post product announcements. And agree with Nfitz that this is a long time coming. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nfitz. Skype has been a dead man walking for some time now, this just formalizes it. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until it's actually discontinued, as per EF5. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Maybe if we were talking about the discontinuation of Microsoft Windows, given how ubiquitious it is, where there was no obvious replacement for it, but Skype users are being transitioned to Teams, so its not like people are losing functionality. --Masem (t) 01:57, 1 March 2025
• Oppose per Nfitz and also that Skype has effectively been succeeded by Microsoft Teams. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 03:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both now and on the actual date of closing. Online services are discontinued all the time. Not of historical consequence. –DMartin 05:19, 1 March 2025 (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.

 –DMartin 08:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost Ready Just a few sections in the career section needs sources. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American novelist and screenwriter. 240F:7A:6253:1:69D8:FCDF:F69C:463 (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready. Quite a few sections need sources. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 21:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Pakistani Islamic scholar and politician Fahads1982^talk/contrib 23:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support A bit on the short side, but it seems fully-cited. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference (talk · history · )
Blurb: ​ An agreement to provide developing countries with $200 billion a year by 2030 is reached at the extended session of the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference. ()
Alternative blurb: ​ A roadmap towards providing developing countries with $200 billion a year by 2030 is agreed to at the extended session of the 2024 United Nations Biodiversity Conference.
News source(s): The Independent, The Guardian, Avvenire
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Oltrepier (talk · )
• Created by Chidgk1 (talk · )
• Updated by Cosmicseeds (talk · )

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Definitely less relevant than... well, whatever has just happened over at the White House, but still, this agreement couldn't have been less taken for granted, especially since negotiations had already broken up back in November. Yet, this conference has ended on a somewhat positive note, and since we usually report on the better known COPs, I think it would be nice to cover this event, as well. Oltrepier (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks great and we could definitely use some positive news. NewishIdeas (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The agreement, based on what I'm reading, is really flimsy and doesn't seem to have any serious means of enforcing these payments to happen. This isn't as strong as, say, the Paris Agreement, in terms of commitment from countries (barring individual countries having to sign onto said treaties). Masem (t) 23:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add, I point this out as the bar we have usually done for any type of global meeting like this or the G7 or G20 (which happen with relatively high frequency) is that the result should be something clearly actionable, and not just another bit of lip service. --Masem (t) 13:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Masem, unless someone introduces reasoning to the contrary. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Kip That was a very good point, in fairness. At the very least, though, we know that $20 billion need to be raised by the end of this year: that would be the first test of serious commitment from the participating countries. Plus, progress on this matter will be reviewed at the next COP in 2026, and ministers of finance and environment from all of the countries are expected to hold an "international dialogue" to ensure the targets are reached. So, I guess there's some kind of political will, if anything... Oltrepier (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Masem is correct, this is not a firm commitment to the $200b funding, but rather, an agreement on a potential "roadmap" towards $200b by 2030. The COP16 participants can choose to follow the road map or not at any time, at their total discretion, between now and 2030. With this being said, a quick google search indicates that this is indeed getting coverage in RS (the Guardian, BBC, Politico, La Presse, etc). Some of the coverage is critical of the deal for the reasons indicated - the Guardian calls it flimsy and says it does not do enough. Although critical, this is nonetheless substantive coverage, so I will weakly support with the stipulation that we should probably use altblurb if we do post. Flip^andFlopped ツ 06:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem @Flipandflopped You're both right: I actually intended to clarify that it was a roadmap, rather than an obligation, in my original blurb, but I was afraid of making the blurb too verbose and unclear... I most definitely support the use of altblurb, as well.

  Also, can you direct me towards the articles you've found, please? That would help me add more sources and bits of information to the article. Oltrepier (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Guardian, BBC, Politico (EU), La Presse, CBC, New York Times, South China Morning Post, Times of India

  As I recall, the two with the more pointed criticisms are the Guardian and Politico. Flip^andFlopped ツ 16:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Flipandflopped Thank you very much, I'll take a look at them and see what's missing! Oltrepier (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Flipandflopped @Yakikaki Done! Let me know how do you feel about my latest changes. Oltrepier (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, article is much improved. I support posting the altblurb. Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Not because it's positive news (I'm not sure it is, the final agreements could/should have been much stronger), but because it's still an important landmark in the efforts to tackle global biodiversity loss, and will set the pace and direction of this work until the next meeting. And it's a well-written article. The only thing is that the coverage of the actual negotiations is a bit on the weak side, hence my weak support. Yakikaki (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Yakikaki Do you mean the original negotiations, or the outcome of the extended session? Oltrepier (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good development of the article, I'd be willing to drop my "weak" from the support. Yakikaki (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Relevant agreement. ArionStar (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose just one of many international conferences or summits. 2A02:8071:78E1:A100:DDF5:3907:4AAA:5FA3 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I guess... but at least they've managed to reach some notable agreements, and it wasn't meant to be taken for granted at all. Oltrepier (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose more talk more pledges more promises; all of it meaningless in the grand scheme of things. If anything flying in lots of people from around the globe on private jets to sit around in conference halls eating prepackaged sandwiches does more harm to biodiversity than good. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But even if that is your personal political opinion (that global environment conferences are meaningless "pledges and promises" which do more harm than good), shouldn't your assessment of notability be rooted in whether or not this event has a significant depth of coverage in the reliable sources? Flip^andFlopped ツ 14:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We also measure impact to assess notability. Politicians jetting off to sit in meetings in order to announce vague promises isn't exactly very impactful and is WP:ROUTINE. News with no impact doesn't meet any ITN notability criteria. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Whilst these summits are regular, they're not too frequent (i.e. annually). The final agreement and outcomes are not particularly strong or radical, yet they sadly very rarely are; it's all slow, incremental progress, but it sets the direction and pace of travel and gives a summary on the state of the World. The agreement the operation of the new global mechanism to share benefits from digital genetic information is substantial and perhaps the most practical, concrete outcome and this has been a long time coming - the Convention on Biological Diversity was all the way back in Rio 1992; and Nagoya (COP10 (2010)) were a long time ago. Montezuma69 (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. High quality notable encyclopedic content that is in the news. Some of the opposition seems to come from criticisms about the conference rather than whether it's notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:10, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Admins willing to post ITN: sorry for the ping, but just flagging that this has been marked ready for 24h now (not tagged ready by me though, I just noticed it). Perhaps someone has time to make a consensus decision. Flip^andFlopped ツ 18:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted alt blurb. Schwede66 18:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull, this conference was largely ignored and the blurb is about future commitments that may never come to pass. Abductive (reasoning) 10:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]