Template:Did you know nominations/Schweiz am Sonntag

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 Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Schweiz am Sonntag

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in Switzerland, national and cantonal councils members from seven parties filed a complaint with the Schweizer Presserat against Schweiz am Sonntag due to its reporting of politician Geri Müller's sexual conversations? Source: SRF.ch
  • ALT1:... that Swiss newspaper Schweiz am Sonntag was found to have violated the privacy of politician Geri Müller over an article it published in relation to Müller's sexual communications? Source: Horizont

Created by Lucky102 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I am approving ALT1 as being more interesting to a general audience than the original hook. @Lucky102: Please can you add a citation to the end of the first paragraph of the "Controversy" section. No QPQ needed for this nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Citation added @Cwmhiraeth: Lucky102 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• The ALT1 hook is a borderline BLP violation. The subject of the hook doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. And the article itself is half facts and half controversy. It doesn't seem balanced or neutral enough for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: The hook is not a violation of BLP as it is a neutral wording and it was the ruling that occurred. Some wording has been changed in the Controversy section of the page to make it sound more neutral, alongside an additional source verifying the press council's ruling. Lucky102 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm asking for other editors' input at WT:DYK. Yoninah (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree Yoninah. If the press council found that there was no public interest in publishing the story, why would we want to highlight it? I also agree that the article looks unbalanced. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• After discussions here and on WT:DYK, consensus appears to be that neither the main hook nor ALT1 are worth running. I've taken a look at the article and unfortunately there doesn't seem to be anything else hook-worthy in it, so this nomination is now marked for closure. If any other editor can propose another hook before this is closed, please feel free to do so. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)