Template:Did you know nominations/Nkandla compound firepool controversy

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Nkandla compound firepool controversy

(

)

... ~~that a pool at South African president Jacob Zuma's Nkandla compound is referred to as a fire pool in official South African documents?~~

Reviewed: Leó Szilárd

Created by Sburnettza (talk). Expanded by Nathan121212 and Northamerica1000. Nominated by Northamerica1000 (talk) at 07:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

Comment – The article is presently being discussed at AfD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it survives AfD (personally it should simply be redirected to cistern) as the article stands it's a WP:COATRACK for this presidential scandal-ette. It can't run at DYK until it actually talks about its nominal subject. EEng (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Firepool article was deleted, along with a rationale at the AfD discussion in part of "No prejudice against creation of an article with an appropriate title such as "Nkandla firepool controversy..." The Firepool article was userfied to my userspace, where I copy edited it, and is now in main namespace, titled Nkandla compound firepool controversy. As such, I have struck the initial hook above, modified the title of this nomination, and have provided ALT1 below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that a controversial pool built at South African president Jacob Zuma's Nkandla compound, deemed as a "fire pool," has faced "public condemnation" from some South Africans?

As the original author of the article but a new wiki editor, it has been an intriguing process seeing how it developed - and what happens behind the scenes. I'm in support of it being labelled to a redirect. My intentions were originally to show how disingenious it is for government ministers to use Wikipedia as a source for official reports due to its fluid nature of updating. The word 'firepool' might eventually become commonplace, but it should be known that it started as an excuse and I think the current status shows just that. Sburnettza (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

EEng, the article was deleted early on June 7, userfied, and moved back to mainspace under its new name a few hours later. Has it avoided its coatrack aspects this time? Were there other issues you were concerned about? If not, I'll call for a reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is now about what it's really about, if you get what I mean, so the coatrack issue is gone. I think it's a bit marginal for notability -- sudden issue which quickly disappeared -- but I'm not worried about it myself. EEng (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Full review needed of reconstituted article and hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm uncomfortable promoting anything to the front page whose Wikipedia article has spawned newspaper articles ("Thanks to Zuma, 'firepool' now has a Wiki page" - even the Times can't get our name right!), this is long enough and new enough and its hook short enough and sourced. I see no neutrality issues or copyright violations. Good to go.--Laun chba ller 17:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)