Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Edward Snowden

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Per Orlady

DYK toolbox

Edward Snowden

[edit]
(
)

Edward Snowden

Created by Collaboration (talk). Nominated by Hillbillyholiday81 (talk) at 15:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC).

  • This was just at ITN this week. Not a good fit for DYK. --NeilN talk to me 18:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • PRISM was ITN, but Snowden was not, as far as I can tell. That does not affect DYK eligibility. The particular merge discussion for the page also shouldn't affect eligibility, one way or the other, but Main Page appearance should probably wait for the outcome. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • June 9th: "A former CIA employee named Edward Snowden comes forward as the source of recent NSA leaks in the United States. Fearful of prosecution for his actions, he defects to Hong Kong." --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Where did that come from? I looked at every diff of T:ITN from June 9 (UTC) and didn't see it. I also checked many other diffs during the period in which the PRISM item was added, updated, and removed. I didn't see any mention of Snowden. (And note that even if he was mentioned, the article would only be ineligible for DYK if his mention was in bold.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Yes, that's the "wrong place" for relevance here. What is relevant here is whether the article appeared in In the news on the Main Page in bold, which it didn't. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that this article is difficult to reconcile with rule D7 of the Supplementary Guidelines. ' There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress.' The article has 500 edits in the last 6 days! So it is still clearly a work in progress. Crispulop (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Considering that this article has gotten 2 million views in the last month, and that the story is developing every day, I have to agree with Crispulop. Besides, if DYK is to "showcase Wikipedia's newest content", then this article really doesn't need a DYK right now. Hold for a month? Possible in theory, but this is already a month old. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Crisco. Anyway, who doesn't know the Snowden story now? The hook would have been more interesting if it said Snowden's girlfriend was a pole dancer. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 04:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is that the hook is now common knowledge, the article is constantly evolving and thus not "complete", and that it has already had mainpage exposure (even if not a bold link) and plenty of exposure in general. Since no one has objected/commented further in 10 days, I'd say its time to close this down. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Snowden will likely make ITN when he is arrested or granted asylum, based on previous discussions there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus. An article may not be kiboshed just because it may appear on ITN one day (and in this case probably won't). Review it properly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, three editors (not including NeilN) all agreed that it doesn't really fit the mission of DYK (for slightly variant reasons) and no one disagreed. You can consider me in agreement as well, if you like. I would call that a consensus any day. At bare minimum, a new hook would be needed as the current one if not interesting anymore since it is common knowledge. Also, my "no" tick was unrelated to whether it will or won't appear on ITN. That was an aside (hence the "P.S.") based on my close following of ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is complete per rule D7.
  • ALT1: that Edward Snowden (pictured) joined the Army Reserve, but was discharged because he broke both his legs in a training accident? Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I haven't read the entire discussion above, but Snowden is obviously known for something far more important than a training accident so this hook looks incongruous to me. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's end this nomination process now. Here are the reasons to end it:
  • The article is hardly "new" at this point, and most of the world will recognize that.
  • The proposed hook facts are either (1) already very well known by almost everybody who might possibly care or (2) ridiculously trivial for such a major story (creating the incongruous situation that Gatoclass describes).
  • DYK will not help draw any more attention to the article than it has already received and will continue to receive.
  • Running this hook in DYK is likely to draw negative attention to DYK, largely due to the first two items enumerated above.
  • The article is destined to appear in ITN someday, when Snowden gets asylum or when some other significant event occurs. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Edward_Snowden&oldid=1022244982"