Template:Did you know nominations/R v Grillo and Grillo
- The following discussion 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 Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
R v Grillo and Grillo
[edit]
- ... that Nigella Lawson (pictured) was accused by Italian sisters Elisabetta and Francesca Grillo of treating them as "worse than Filipino slaves"?
Created by Philip Cross (talk), PatGallacher (talk). Nominated by Theparties (talk) at 21:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC).
Looks to me like the hook fails the content criteria "neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people". The quote is an allegation made during an ongoing trial, not an established fact which is unlikely to change. Would question whether the R v Grillo & Grillo article is suitable for DYK at all while still ongoing. The accompanying image is not used in the article either. --Bcp67 (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the ongoing trial involves the well-known British personalities, Nigella Lawson and Charles Saatchi, and their former personal assistants, Elisabetta and Francesca Grillo, the Italian sisters?
- My two cents: Just the fact that this hook is connected to an ongoing trial makes me very uncomfortable and in agreement with Cas Liber--I do not think this is appropriate, even if the hook is softened there's still neutrality issues and there is a nagging fear that this could expose WMF to possible legal problems if it were on the main page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- This implies that this article shouldn't exist in the first place. Which part of WP:BLP does this nomination violate? George Ho (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I also don't see this as being appropriate for DYK or the main page. DYK isn't an "in the news" type section, its supposed to be for reasonably complete articles about established facts. As for the article not being suitable to exist, that's also a fair point. The trial is getting plenty of media coverage in the UK but the BBC, daily press etc have legal teams who will be able to vet their coverage and decide if it contravenes the rules of sub judice etc. We don't have that ability here and coverage of current legal proceedings could be a very dangerous area to get into. I think this review should be closed and the article removed from DYK consideration. --Bcp67 (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you don't think the article should exist, then nominate it for deletion (or propose merging data to other pages). George Ho (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I took a look at the AfD criteria and I couldn't see anything which applies to the article so I won't nominate it for deletion. I still don't feel this belongs to DYK but I don't have anything solid to base that on, so will step away from this discussion now and leave to it to people with a better grasp of the DYK rules to decide, sorry. --Bcp67 (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- George, for me, whether an article should exist and whether it should be on the main page are two separate issues. I suspect this case is notable enough for its own page (I haven't delved into it and don't really care to), however I don't think it is necessary for it to be on the main page. There is really no need for extra attention on this sordid and unhappy affair. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
In other words, not appropriate as ITN either in case of upcoming events? George Ho (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)