Template:Did you know nominations/Ghost boat


 * 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 Zanhe (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost boat

 * ... that, in 2014, 243 people on a Ghost boat vanished without a trace, more than the 239 passengers who disappeared on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370?


 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tusheti National Park

Created by Esemono (talk). Self-nominated at 08:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC).

Sorry, Esemono, but there are serious concerns about the sources on which this story is based, so Wikipedia should not assert these events as fact. They may be true, but the sources are essentially a blog, so do not meet WP:RS. As Moriori pointed out, this article could work if the research of the blogger was picked up by news sources with a reputation for fact-checking, but a month after the nomination was made, no such sources have been added. There is a fine article on Columbia Journalism Review and a shorter piece on NPR, but both CJR+NPR are reporting on Eric Reidy's investigation, rather than on the event. Neither CJR nor NPR assert Reidy's findings as fact. If the article is to be retained, it should really be be recast in accordance with those reliable sources as "Ghost boat investigation", a story about the investigation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Caution. This shouldn't proceed. This claimed event basically emanates from one man writing for a blog. Such an event would have been disseminated widely by the international media. It hasn't been. There is no deadline so we can wait until it ever is. (User:Moriori refused to sign his statement so I added his name here, 20:48, 7 December 2015‎ )
 * It has been disseminated widely by the international media as shown by the sources, including a NPR piece -- Esemono (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then you can provide links to articles/reports about this in The Times, Moscow Times, New York Times, The Hindu, ABC, Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN, Reuters etc etc etc. Look, all I am saying is that there is no reason for us to rush into this one. Regarding sources, 10 of the inlines go to one person, the blogger who started this story. Incidentally, your knowledge of my intentions -- "refused to sign his statement" -- is incorrect. I forgot. Moriori (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In the article there are three reliable sources in addition to Bobbie Johnson's project on MATTER with reporter Eric Reidy. Does it say in DYK rules that an article must have sources in X amount of international media? The article is sourced enough to go forward. Also, thank you for following Wikipedia protocol this time. -- Esemono (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The refs you mention all lead back to the blogger's story. The article needs attention. We don't know what the name of the boat was, or if it actually existed. No wreckage found, no bodies found. No passenger manifest. We say there were at least 243 people on board and under Deaths we say "243, all, presumed". Where are the reliable independent refs for that supposition. The article needs attention, and we should wait until it is brought up to encyclopedic standard. Moriori (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Rejected.

Good idea. I have moved it to Ghost boat investigation.--Esemono (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm done here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that a project has been launched, the Ghost boat investigation, to look into how 243 people vanished without a trace in 2014, more than the 239 passengers who disappeared on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370?
 * AFAICS, it is still substantially the same article, and has not been significantly recast. It still relies overwhelmingly on Reidy's own blog, rather than on 3rd-party accounts of his work. So far as I am concerned, this article has been rejected for DYK, but if another reviewer wants to reopen it, that is their choice. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't you confirm that the article has two respected sources and 3rd-party accounts that are reporting on the fact that Reidy and Bobbie Johnson, of Medium.com, have created an investigation? "There is a fine article on Columbia Journalism Review and a shorter piece on NPR, but both CJR+NPR are reporting on Eric Reidy's investigation" -- Esemono (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my comment of 11 January. Yes, those sources exsist and are used, but it is still substantially an article about the alleged ghost boat, rather than about the investigation. It still relies overwhelmingly on Reidy's blog.
 * The article to me seems to be about the investigation. We shouldn't delete all information about the Ghost boat after all that is what the investigation is about. -- Esemono (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Added a new source to the article -- Esemono (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Added an article from l'Espresso an Italian weekly news magazine that is one of the two most prominent Italian weeklies - Esemono (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg the article is treating Reidy's blogs as a reliable source of information instead of using secondary sources to comment on Reidy's blogs. It's probably in Wikipedia's best interests to delete the article.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  09:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)