Template:Did you know nominations/Migratory Sharks MoU
- 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: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Migratory Sharks MoU
[edit]- ... that the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks, brought into force in 2010, was the first global instrument that dealt with migratory sharks?
- Reviewed: Fuahea Semi
Created/expanded by Hirziluqman (talk). Nominated by Chipmunkdavis (talk) at 16:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I have concerns about the subject's notability. All sources about the document are primary. Is there a particular reason why this can't be handled under the Bonn Convention main article?
- Length and newness technically check out. However, a significant portion of the article is background information. This reinforces the idea that the content would be better handled as a section of (the very short) Bonn Convention rather than as an independent article, barring possible explanation to the contrary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I had a similar concern when I first came upon the article, however I looked around on google and thought it had enough coverage to be deemed notable, and more from some secondary sources could definitely be added.
- Just as a fun note, if this was merged, it would make up all the sourced information in the Bonn Convention article! CMD (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am seeing only one reliable source which covers the subject in depth, an that is technically an editorial. The article would probably have a somewhat better than 50% chance of surviving AfD, if challenged, but certainly less than 100%. As such, I will wait for another opinion. BTW, the hook is referenced inline and verified by the (primary) source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe this one is ready for review. For one thing, I consider that announcements by the United Nations and various national governments are pretty solid sourcing for an article about an international agreement. Regardless, there are now some additional sources that ought to put the notability issue to rest. I've made several edits to the article, so I think it would be best for someone else to do the review. --Orlady (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
