Did you know nomination[edit]

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 Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Significant article issues remain unaddressed.

Created/expanded by 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nice job saving this article! Recently expanded 5x, no copyvio and seems balanced. The sourcing might need a little work though. The article and several hooks cite Forbes Contributor article which isn't a reliable source. Can this be replaced with a more reliable source (the refs look good otherwise)? ALT0 seems the most interesting to me, but it's cited to a Forbes Contributor article. Striking ALT5 and ALT6 since they don't seem quite as interesting as the others. Re: ALT3 I'm not sure if running a photo of someone other than the person in the hook is ideal, but the hook itself is good. (Note: I also removed some overlinking from the hooks.) BuySomeApples (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and David Eppstein: Just to clarify regarding articles related to people convicted of crimes: if their articles are almost entirely about the crimes they committed and their trial/conviction, would that still be considered an "undue focus about negative aspects of living people"? What about if the person is already deceased? I'm not asking about this specific nomination but rather in general, since we've sometimes had nominations about people convicted of crimes (both living and deceased) and their hooks focused on their crimes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it hinges on the word "unduly". One might argue that this means that someone only known for crimes could still be listed, because the description of their crimes is not "undue". But in the case of Lamba, most of the article is unconfirmed allegations and their denials, not a suitable basis for a DYK hook or for featuring on DYK. There is a criminal conviction, for killing someone in a traffic accident, but that's not what the hooks and most of the article are about. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]