Template:Did you know nominations/Deepak Manange
- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Deepak Manange
... that Provincial legislator Rajiv Gurung of Nepal has previously been convicted of attempted murder?Source: Kathmandu Post
- Reviewed: To come
Created by Usedtobecool (talk). Self-nominated at 11:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC).
Owing to BLP concerns the currently proposed hook is probably unsuitable. A different hook may need to be written. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I disagree there are any BLP concerns. Even for non-public figures, the gold standard of BLPCRIME is conviction. The subject is (1) a public figure and (2) nonetheless, the standard of conviction is met, verifiable in and verified with reliable sources (in the Supreme Court, so there is no higher authority for further challenge). Anything worth saying about a person whose notability stems from criminal activities is going to be about crime; avoiding that in a hook would give WP:UNDUE prominence to minor aspects of the topic, and doing so on the main page would violate WP:NPOV (as much as it can apply in non-articles). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to propose a different hook that does not focus on his criminal activities then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No. For the biography of a convicted criminal, who happens to be a public figure and notable owing to crime, any hook not to do with crime would be (1) misleading (2) undue and uninteresting. I see no reason why the suggested hook should be unacceptable, nor can I think of a more hooky alternative. As I have already said, the hook meets the standard at WP:BLP. If the concern is due to the relevant point of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Review the hook, it says to consider
whether the hook puts undue emphasis on a negative aspect of a living individual
(emphasis mine). The fact in question is undeniably very very WP:DUE, there is no doubt. The thing that provides everlasting notability to the subject, being a legislator, is completely entwined with his conviction for this crime because of the constitutional provisions that make the latter relevant to the former. If there are any guidelines other than the BLP policy and the point I mentioned from the reviewing guide, that are relevant here, I would be grateful to be made aware of them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- No. For the biography of a convicted criminal, who happens to be a public figure and notable owing to crime, any hook not to do with crime would be (1) misleading (2) undue and uninteresting. I see no reason why the suggested hook should be unacceptable, nor can I think of a more hooky alternative. As I have already said, the hook meets the standard at WP:BLP. If the concern is due to the relevant point of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide#Review the hook, it says to consider
- Would you be willing to propose a different hook that does not focus on his criminal activities then? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the hook is tolerable and within policy. I also think better hook can be written. --evrik (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that he's a living person who has been convicted is not the only consideration in our BLP requirement for hooks. Another is not to pain the living victims of the person's crime. I agree with evrik that a better hook can be written. Yoninah (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Part of BLP is WP:BLPBALANCE. Such balance is absent in such a blunt hook, which does not convey the constitutional nuance mentioned above. Given DYKs go onto the main page, additional caution should be exercised. I'm also unconvinced the article has the dispassionate tone advised by WP:BLPSTYLE. CMD (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Regardless, I still have reservations about running a hook that basically says "Did you know that this person is a criminal?". If his criminal activities were his main claim to notability, it still wouldn't be appropriate, although perhaps a hook about his crimes specifically may be allowed and in the past hooks about convicted criminals have run albeit not with hooks similar to ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO — He is mainly known for his criminal activities. He was still arrested after becoming a politician. This:
After serving a month, he managed to get himself released by successfully petitioning that he was Rajiv Gurung, not Deepak Manange (the named accused)
is an interesting line maybe it could be used for DYK. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- IMHO — He is mainly known for his criminal activities. He was still arrested after becoming a politician. This:
- Regardless, I still have reservations about running a hook that basically says "Did you know that this person is a criminal?". If his criminal activities were his main claim to notability, it still wouldn't be appropriate, although perhaps a hook about his crimes specifically may be allowed and in the past hooks about convicted criminals have run albeit not with hooks similar to ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Part of BLP is WP:BLPBALANCE. Such balance is absent in such a blunt hook, which does not convey the constitutional nuance mentioned above. Given DYKs go onto the main page, additional caution should be exercised. I'm also unconvinced the article has the dispassionate tone advised by WP:BLPSTYLE. CMD (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Usedtobecool: As other editors have stated that a new hook may be needed, please propose one so that the nomination can continue (the original hook has been struck per agreement that a different hook can be proposed). Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- That's not exactly how I read the emergent consensus much of which I disagree with to begin with. Regardless, I am unable to put in additional time into this, and must, regretfully, withdraw, with thanks to everyone who commented. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
With regret. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
