Template:Did you know nominations/Flightless (Record Label)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 BlueMoonset (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Too many issues, none of which have been addressed by the student editor, who hasn't edited in weeks, and no one has expressed interest in adopting the nomination after a post at WT:DYK; closing as unsuccessful

DYK toolbox

Flightless (Record Label)

(
)

5x expanded by GC2021 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC).

  • Sorry, GC2021, but this isn't eligible for DYK. It needs to have been 5x expanded in the previous seven days before nominating. Beyond that, we can't use Discogs or the company website as a source for these claims. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Reopening after far-too-quick rejection. The nomination, by an editor new to DYK, was made on an expansion that began on May 16, when the article was 2022 prose characters, and the article is currently 9426 prose characters, only 684 prose characters short of 5x. We typically allow an IAR exception for new nominators if they're a little late (only three days in this case), and we typically allow any nominator a chance to make up the difference if they come up a little short in the expansion department, since many don't know how to count prose characters. What is more serious is that the article will need to be edited to deal with getting better sourcing and encyclopedic tone—both these issues will need to be addressed before the nomination can proceed, and the resulting article will need to be at least 10110 prose characters. Pinging Rhododendrites (given how close this was to a 5x expansion, the "X" was probably not appropriate) and Desertarun (seven days is standard to allow for issues like this to be noted before rejecting a nomination). BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The refs are social media, primary, wp:inherit and include Adverts! It would need tnt to be compliant for dyk. Desertarun (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • That's the first I've heard of any IAR leniency for newbies at DYK (for allowing them to fix things, sure, but not when it comes to the deadline). In fact there have been multiple new users I was working with who nominated a day or two late and had it rejected (and in those cases, sourcing, the article, etc. weren't a problem). If allowances are made routinely IMO that's not IAR but something that should be documented so we can actually tell me users what to expect. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Usually we do allow leniency for first-time nominators provided the other requirements are met or if any issues are easily surmountable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It'd be great to get that documented somewhere. Like I said, I've worked with newbies who were rejected, and it'd be good to be able to point to what's actually going to happen before going through the process of creation the nomination. That aside, I've left a message for the nominator following up on some of the issues. The deadline certainly isn't the only issue -- it's a good faith/probably-not-COI article, but extensive use of the official site (and collaborators' official sites) makes it pretty promotional. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a relatively common occurrence, and even with veterans we usually accept a one-or-two-day delay if it's for good reason. Usually outright rejection happens when the lateness is too long (anything more than a week). It's not really a guideline, but more of a common application of IAR. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A full review of the article is still needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: what is needed? It's not new enough (but we can make an exception); it's long enough; the hook isn't properly sourced, and there are major policy/guideline problems with the article. Additional details at User talk:GC2021, but they haven't edited since May 28. Also left a message for the professor, just to suggest they talk about independent sourcing next time around. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Desertarun didn't check all the requirements, which is why I was asking for a more complete review. While the nomination date can probably be excused per IAR, that doesn't touch upon the rest of the article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
If the nominator doesn't return, would someone else be willing to adopt this nomination in their place? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Nominator hasn't edited in several weeks and no one has adopted the nomination since then. Marking for closure as stale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Flightless_(Record_Label)&oldid=1029628265"