Template:Did you know nominations/Carolina Gynning

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: rejected by PFHLai (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Carolina Gynning edit

Carolina Gynning (2013)

  • Comment: I was unsure which status to choose as I have rewritten the entire article from scratch as the previous version was mostly unsourced and badly formatted. I have now rewritten it so it will follow BLP. And it could also be considered a new article as it is completely new information and heavily expanded.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

2x expanded and sourced (BLP) by BabbaQ (talk, Rosario Berganza (talk, Werldwayd (talk, Launchballer (talk). Self nominated by BabbaQ at 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC).

  • The article was indeed written from scratch, qualifying it as new. Article is new enough, long enough, well referenced, neutrally written. Image is public domain. QPQ done. It would be nice to say what kind of artwork she put on exhibition, but that shouldn't hold up this nomination. Foreign-language hook ref AGF and hook cited inline. I added "Swedish model" to the hook. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Might I suggest using the image. Mostly we use images of old churches and black/white photos at DYK. Lets promote youth and beauty :).--BabbaQ (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely not eligible for the BLP exception and not a new article. You definitely cannot remove almost all of the content and all of the references, then blank it, and then claim it was a 2x BLP expansion or a new article. The version before you got to it had four references and two external links and was 2160 prose characters. It's currently 5678 (a 2.6x expansion), so another 5122 prose characters would be required for the necessary five times expansion. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 20:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

  • OK that is fine by me. I withdraw the nomination :)--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)