Content deleted Content added
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:*How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. --[[User:Joel7687|Joel7687]] ([[User talk:Joel7687|talk]]) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
:*How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. --[[User:Joel7687|Joel7687]] ([[User talk:Joel7687|talk]]) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html Reliable news sources] have described statements made by Julian Assange about Seth Rich as implying that Rich was the source of the DNC email leaks. That makes his death under suspicious circumstances (short by a "robber" who didn't take anything) notable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DestroyerofDreams|DestroyerofDreams]] ([[User talk:DestroyerofDreams|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DestroyerofDreams|contribs]]) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
*'''Keep''' [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html Reliable news sources] have described statements made by Julian Assange about Seth Rich as implying that Rich was the source of the DNC email leaks. That makes his death under suspicious circumstances (short by a "robber" who didn't take anything) notable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DestroyerofDreams|DestroyerofDreams]] ([[User talk:DestroyerofDreams|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DestroyerofDreams|contribs]]) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::Note this account, although created in 2007, has only 25 edits prior to this comment. I'm sorry but this looks like a sleeper sock account. The !vote should be discounted accordingly. (Also in this case that is NOT a reliable sources). |
|||
*'''Keep'''. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/], The Independent [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-sparks-conspiracy-theories-with-20000-reward-to-find-dnc-employee-seth-rich-s-killer-a7183071.html], The Washington Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html], Sky News [http://news.sky.com/story/wikileaks-reward-fuels-dnc-staffer-conspiracy-10530632], ABC News [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-employee-shot-dead-dc-weekend/story?id=40498551], Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/wikileaks-offers-20000-information-about-murder-se/], CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seth-rich-shot-democratic-national-committee-staffer-washington-dc/], and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death [http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/]. It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, '''is irrelevant'''; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. [[User:TradingJihadist|TradingJihadist]] ([[User talk:TradingJihadist|talk]]) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Keep'''. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/wikileaks-offers-20000-reward-over-murder-of-democrat-staffer-se/], The Independent [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-sparks-conspiracy-theories-with-20000-reward-to-find-dnc-employee-seth-rich-s-killer-a7183071.html], The Washington Post [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html], Sky News [http://news.sky.com/story/wikileaks-reward-fuels-dnc-staffer-conspiracy-10530632], ABC News [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-employee-shot-dead-dc-weekend/story?id=40498551], Washington Times [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/wikileaks-offers-20000-information-about-murder-se/], CBS News [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seth-rich-shot-democratic-national-committee-staffer-washington-dc/], and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death [http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/]. It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, '''is irrelevant'''; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. [[User:TradingJihadist|TradingJihadist]] ([[User talk:TradingJihadist|talk]]) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep''' Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. --[[User:Joel7687|Joel7687]] ([[User talk:Joel7687|talk]]) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. --[[User:Joel7687|Joel7687]] ([[User talk:Joel7687|talk]]) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:44, 11 August 2016
Murder of Seth Rich
- Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no tangible connection asserted in reliable sources between this event and the DNC leaks. It should therefore be treated as just another (non-notable) murder. StAnselm (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- The murder of a DNC worker at the time it happened is obviously a notable murder. Moreover, the implications of the actions of WikiLeak in this matter with the posting of a reward for information in the context of danger to whistle-blowers who give information to WikiLeaks, certainly raises the notability of the killing of Seth Rich. I can see no benefit to censoring the article. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC))
- Delete WP:NCRIME WP:NOTNEWS--Savonneux (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Explain how it doesn't meet those guideslines. My comment below explains why it meets the guidelines. As it is, your comment is not worth much. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Change the name of the article to Seth Rich Based on the reliable sources available specifically discussing the individual and the circumstances surrounding his death, I think Mr. Rich meets the guidelines for a WP:BLP. Additional information and editing to the page as it stands, coupled with a change in the title of the page would be sufficient to keep the article. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 14:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Coverage mainly about self-serving Wikileaks statements irrelevant to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- How would you support your statement of non-notability in light of all of the national and international media coverage? And even if WikiLeaks' statements or stance were "self-serving", latching onto conspiracy theory as others have said, or otherwise wrong or objectionable in some way, that just means that the outcome of the investigation could affect WikiLeaks' reputation as well as the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It seems to me that this makes the murder even more notable. --Joel7687 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Reliable news sources have described statements made by Julian Assange about Seth Rich as implying that Rich was the source of the DNC email leaks. That makes his death under suspicious circumstances (short by a "robber" who didn't take anything) notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DestroyerofDreams (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Note this account, although created in 2007, has only 25 edits prior to this comment. I'm sorry but this looks like a sleeper sock account. The !vote should be discounted accordingly. (Also in this case that is NOT a reliable sources).
- Keep. No policy-based reason has been given by the nominator, except vague and easily refuted assertion of "non-notable". This incident has received a large amount of coverage for a month now, from the time of his death to the recent WikiLeaks/Assange statements, with dozens of articles in such outlets as The Daily Telegraph [1], The Independent [2], The Washington Post [3], Sky News [4], ABC News [5], Washington Times [6], CBS News [7], and so on. There is a lengthy and detailed Snopes article on the theories surrounding his death [8]. It's fairly obvious that this death meets the notability requirements. What people think of this death and the theories/circumstances surrounding it, which appears to be a key part of opposition to the article and its contents, is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that this incident has received plenty of detailed coverage in numerous reliable sources. Therefore someone needs to show that the coverage is not detailed enough, the sources are poor, or there are very few sources, but it's pretty clear that no-one is able to do that. TradingJihadist (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Even if Rich and his death would otherwise be non-notable, there is extensive discussion, including in numerous mainstream media stories, about whether he was the source of the DNC leak that led to the DNC chair stepping down. WikiLeaks has offered a $20,000 reward for information, which they do not do for most murders. This is more than just another murder, even if it does later turn out that the events would not have been notable if the circumstances had been known from the beginning. --Joel7687 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- "even if it does later turn out " - this is WP:CRYSTALBALLING. We do not know what will "later turn out" and since this is an article about a recently deceased person (so BLP still applies. It also applies since this has repercussions for the guy's family) we err on the side of caution. IF "it later turns out" that there was a significant link between WikiLeaks and Rich THEN this article can be created etc. For now, BLP says "be cautious". So it should be deleted.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NCRIME. Also see WP:BLP1E. IF there was substantial indication of a link to the Wikileaks nonsense then maybe. But there isn't and this article's purpose seems to be just to fan the flames of conspiracy theories. (Also, I'll repeat my earlier comment, that a brand new account with the username "TradingJihadist", knows precisely how to create a brand new article, nominate it for DYK and then navigate DYK criteria and process. Obviously not a brand new user.) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)