Talk:Border death

Did you know nomination

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. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron talk 04:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that more than 63,000 border deaths were documented between 2014 and 2024? Source: various, see article
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/English claims to the French throne

Created by Buidhe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 266 past nominations.

(t · c) buidhe 04:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems: - Nominated 1.5 days after the 7-day window triggered by a five-fold expansion (Oct. 25), but covered under the flexiblity afforded by WP:DYKNEW

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: - The first sentence is primarily a quotation from a single scholarly chapter that is quoted but unattributed. This sets up the article to be based on those authors' point of view, which may be warranted, but there's no evidence supplied that those authors' definition is an NPOV definition. In the same paragraph, the authors say there is no fixed definition of 'border deaths', so I think some additional perspective is required here. What are the other definitions, and why did these authors include only their definition? In general, a WP:FIRST sentence should frame the subject for Wikipedia readers without quoting from a single source. I think the two free-floating quotations in the "Opinion" section could be better contextualized.
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Since the 63,000 is from a specific source (linking here for purposes of eventual promoter), it should be attributed here. See below.

QPQ: - Not done
Overall: Giving flexibility on the newness requirement. Copyvio-free as far as I can tell. One of the two submitted QPQs only addresses the hook sourcing and does not indicate that a full review for all DYK criteria was completed. As noted above, the hook (which is appropriately sourced and interesting) should be attributed. I would be willing to approve ALT0a: ... that the International Organization for Migration documented more than 63,000 border deaths between 2014 and 2024? once the other criteria are addressed. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: The nomination may be closed if you are unable to provide a full or complete review for your QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Why does DYK prefer that you just check everything off rather than actually point out problems with the article? I spent more time reviewing than the typical slap dash review but you're saying it doesn't count because I am not wasting my time on a full review unless obvious problems are fixed. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

For QPQs to count, they have to be full reviews. That is, they have to check all the DYK criteria. A review does not need to be detailed, but simply saying "this hook is not going to work for DYK" does not count as a full review. Quickfails do count towards QPQs, but not mere hook rejections. Given that it has been a week since Dclemens1971's review and one of your QPQs remains deficient without a replacement or a full review, this is now marked for closure per WP:QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Fine, I will fail the other review because the nominatior hasn't fixed it either. (t · c) buidhe 15:57, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Quickfails meaning "this nomination is rejected because it was not eligible to begin with", not "this nomination is rejected because it does not have a suitable hook." The former is usually insurmountable, the latter is not. Your review would not count as a quickfail. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I probably have another one somewhere in my history, let me check that. (t · c) buidhe 16:24, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/History of the extraterrestrial life debate (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

My understanding was that quoting a reliable source for the definition was an accepted practice especially when it would be difficult or impossible to preserve the meaning while avoiding WP:CLOP. The given definition is the most common in scholarly sources although there is no way to summarize all possible definitions in one sentence, the first paragraph of the lead explains the differing definitions. The article is not based on a particular definition since it just repeats what reliable sources say about the subject. (t · c) buidhe 16:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you. With the QPQ issue now resolved, this is ready for a second review. Moving forward, please keep in mind that only full reviews count as QPQs, and failure to provide a complete review puts nominations at risk of closure. Courtesy ping Dclemens1971. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I made the necessary adjustment to the lead sentence myself, and now with the QPQ resolved the nomination can move forward. ALT0a is approved. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)