Template:Did you know nominations/Boneghazi

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Boneghazi

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that one Tumblr user cursed another for stealing bones to use in curses?

• Source: Tourjée 2016

• Reviewed: MV Spirit of Norfolk and General Electric Showcase House
• Comment: expecting a ghazillion wikicup points when the next competition starts, please and thank you

Moved to mainspace by Theleekycauldron (talk) and Tamzin (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 74 past nominations.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough. This is very well written and it is supported by source, interesting hook and article, QPQ done.

The only issue is I feel like this is on the edge of NEVENT (or NCRIME, I guess?) sourcing-wise and some may raise questions as to the notability of this. The main claim to notability here is the Vice piece, which has its own considerations, though I would accept it for this case. There is an academic mention cited here but from how it's cited here I can't tell how significant it is, but is probably sigcov. Otherwise all the coverage is questionable when it comes to WP:LASTING.

I would vote keep on this at AfD and wouldn't take issue with it personally, given the depth of coverage and the academic mention, but I do feel like this is going to get AfDed once it has left the main page (but will probably survive). Also, I am unsure how I feel, but I feel others may have issues with this hook as it relates to the DYK provision of not running unduly negative hooks about living people on the main page, since this involves crime and the bone thief in question is not a public figure. So I will ask for a second opinion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, PARAKANYAA! NEVENT was a big consideration when we were deciding whether to write this article, but a few factors tipped it over the edge for us. First, the incident led to the state of Louisiana passing a new law, so that's basically ripped out of WP:LASTING. In terms of persistence of coverage, the incident was brought up again when TikTok had a similar controversy six years later, there's some pretty decent retrospective analysis about what state Tumblr was in 2015 and how it compared to TikTok in 2021. As for the spread of coverage, I think the Vice, Washington Post, Intelligencer articles are pretty deep dives from nationwide publications, in addition to the local papers that cover more of the local aspect. Happy to let Tamzin or uninvolved people weigh in here, but I think a closer inspection makes a pretty good case for an NEVENT pass. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually didn't think about the law, which I do agree makes this a better case, though I'm still not fully confident someone won't take issue with it. Even apart from that the BLP aspect of this hook does seem like the kind of thing that someone, rightly or wrongly, would bring up at WP:ERRORS. I think more thoughts on it would help, given how many discussions the "unduly focused on a negative aspect of a living person" bit has resulted in. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if we can do anything about the "wrongly" half there, but WP:DYKBLP is pretty clear about what it covers: "hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons". Mx. Darling is known exclusively for one thing, and that's their role in this controversy, so I think that's satisfied. We're also not naming them in the hook, nor mentioning the legal proceedings in it, nor is the name we use in the article their legal name. (That name shows up in a minority of sources, so we judged it better on privacy grounds to only use their other name.) I don't think you're wrong to speculate that this might get objected to or AfD'd, because some people are bad at assessing notability of pop-culture articles; I'm just not sure what else we can do to mitigate what's more a systemic problem in DYK and Wikipedia. Not really trying to disagree with you on anything here, PARAKANYAA; just explaining how I see it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's convincing. I do have the same interpretation of DYKBLP, but there seems to be a minority interpretation that applies more broadly that I see around. People may take issue with this one, but I believe it abides by our policies. So I will approve this (though if other people would chime in with their thoughts that is of course welcome). PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)