Template:Did you know nominations/Van Breda murders


 * 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) 06:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Van Breda murders

 * ... that South African Henri van Breda is suspected of murdering most of his family with an axe?


 * Reviewed: My 4th DYK nomination so I believe I'm exempt from QPQ

Created by Robvanvee (talk). Self-nominated at 07:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New article, 3754 readable prose, inline citations. The hook is good. QPQ not necessary. Image is high quality, appears in the article, and has appropriate rights. Please fix the spelling of van Breda in the hook, the image caption, and throughout the article. Once that is done, I will pass the nomination. FunkyCanute (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Bit of a blonde moment there, thank you .  Rob van  vee  13:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not all fixed. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Rob van  vee  14:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good to me. FunkyCanute (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Just wondering if this article is within policy - WP:BLPCRIME says that "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." The article is about an ongoing criminal case where the accussed hasn't been convicted of a murder, despite the article title. Is this OK to link from the main page via DYK? Bcp67 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would assume WP:BLPCRIME applies to WP:BLP and as the article is not about the accused but rather about the incident I would further assume the policy doesn't apply in this case. Also, everything stated is sourced. My experience in this department is lacking though... Rob van  vee  13:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair enough, and the sourcing looks reasonable. No objections! Bcp67 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Thanks for raising the issue, . I had not considered the policy, and it seems to me that this should not go forward as DYK, with the possibility that the article ought in fact to be removed, so I'm striking out my earlier tick. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing but I understand. Would be even more disappointing to lose the article after all the work I put in. How does WP:BLPCRIME differ then between this article and the Dylann Roof or Charleston church shooting articles for example?  Rob van  vee  18:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I guess no need to remove the article. A fundamental difference between this and the Charleston church shooting is that in the latter, Roof admitted culpability. While the article is, as you say, about the event, not the individual, the DYK hook is about the individual, which is why I'm not comfortable with it. I think someone else needs to take a look at this, perhaps an admin. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg I agree that the proposed hook violates WP:BLPCRIME, which applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. In this case, I do not think it is appropriate to publish a hook that suggests Henri van Breda may be guilty. What about this hook instead:
 * ALT1: ... that Marli van Breda survived being struck in the head by an axe, but has no memory of the event?
 * I am pinging, , and . Let me know what you think. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I like it, a good second best!  Rob van  vee  10:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Thanks,, ALT1 looks great to me. , please bring the article up to date, and also provide a citation for what seems like media speculation - or reword - and then I'm happy to ok this. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, happy enough with that - thank you. Bcp67 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, will do this weekend when I've got some time. What do you mean by bring the article up to date?  Rob van  vee  15:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * From a cursory search, I see there's been an initial hearing and he was bailed. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated and reworded. How does it look now ?  Rob van  vee  16:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT1 is good to go. FunkyCanute (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)