Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Seth Rich
- The following 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 MPJ-DK 22:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Murder of Seth Rich
[edit]- ... that WikiLeaks has offered $20,000 for information leading to a conviction in the killing of Seth Rich, a Democratic National Committee employee?
Created/expanded by TradingJihadist (talk). Self-nominated at 23:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC).
- This article should probably be deleted/merged to 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak. Aside from being way too short and lacking serious sources, it's just trying to spread some conspiracy theories. Not encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia, never mind the front page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, am I missing something, or is there something seriously sketchy about an editor with a username "TradingJihadist" which was just registered, and has only made a couple of edits on this very article, know how to immediately nominate it for DYK? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: No to the first question and yes to the second. GABgab 00:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article has enough reliable sources, including Daily Telegraph, ABC News, Washington Post, Sky News, and more can be found. I find it very surprising that you would want this to be a redirect to the DNC leak article; would that not be fanning the conspiracy theories that you're so careful to avoid? That would suggest that Wikipedia does indeed believe that there's a connection between Seth Rich and the DNC email leak. If you feel it should be deleted, you can nominate it for deletion. It's not trying to spread anything, merely documenting what's been reported on. It meets the length requirements. All objections have been dealt with as far as I can see. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the articles talk page for additional commentary from me on this. While I think Seth Rich is noteworthy enough for a BLP, the tone of the current article, even having his name redirect to "the murder of Seth Rich" seems slanted towards the conspiracy. I think the page should be kept, but some additional editors feedback on everything and edits would be very helpful. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Have added "alleged" to the hook. Edwardx (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with simply "killing" as that cannot be disputed, even though it's fairly likely to be murder and there are sources referring to it as such. TradingJihadist (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Have added "alleged" to the hook. Edwardx (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please see the articles talk page for additional commentary from me on this. While I think Seth Rich is noteworthy enough for a BLP, the tone of the current article, even having his name redirect to "the murder of Seth Rich" seems slanted towards the conspiracy. I think the page should be kept, but some additional editors feedback on everything and edits would be very helpful. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The article has enough reliable sources, including Daily Telegraph, ABC News, Washington Post, Sky News, and more can be found. I find it very surprising that you would want this to be a redirect to the DNC leak article; would that not be fanning the conspiracy theories that you're so careful to avoid? That would suggest that Wikipedia does indeed believe that there's a connection between Seth Rich and the DNC email leak. If you feel it should be deleted, you can nominate it for deletion. It's not trying to spread anything, merely documenting what's been reported on. It meets the length requirements. All objections have been dealt with as far as I can see. TradingJihadist (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Volunteer Marek: No to the first question and yes to the second. GABgab 00:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Also, am I missing something, or is there something seriously sketchy about an editor with a username "TradingJihadist" which was just registered, and has only made a couple of edits on this very article, know how to immediately nominate it for DYK? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Look, even with the conspiracy mongering toned down and some improvement in the sources, there are way too many BLP issues here for this to go on the front page. Adding "alleged" doesn't help much... where did you add "alleged" anyway? Regardless, this is not suitable for DYK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- There is no "conspiracy mongering" in the article. Everything in the article has been reported by secondary sources. Explain what "BLP issues" are in the article. You can't because there aren't any. Not sure what "not suitable" means. It seems to me that you just disagree with the content. You hand-wave all these policies/guidelines in hopes of strengthening your argument but can't explain why they're applicable. TradingJihadist (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Article ineligible because it is currently at WP:AfD. -- Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that an article simply being at AFD does not make it ineligible. Only when it is decided to be deleted is it ineligible. So nomination on hold till the result of the AFD would be a better description. Cowlibob (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
AFD closed as "no consensus" . — Maile (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
The information in the hook has been cut from the article and is currently being debated. I've added my opinions to the discussion, so I'm not going to repeat them here, but consensus should be reached before this goes forward. FallingGravity 22:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the nominator TradingJihadist was blocked indefinitely on the grounds WP:NOTHERE, after being an editor just a little over 24 hours. Given the dialogue above, perhaps it would be justified to close out this nomination? — Maile (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
No reason to bother. I forget how to close the discussion. EEng 20:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)