- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
length
Muhammad Sharif edit
- ... that Muhammad Sharif was a Pakistani industrialist and father of former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif?
- Reviewed: List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers and Cubana de Aviación Flight 9646
- Comment: BLP referenced and expanded 2x.
Created/expanded by Sahara4u (talk). Self nom at 05:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Article has not any problem in terms of refs, lenght or other points. However, the hook does not give any extraordinary info about Muhammad Sharif. I mean there are many other industrialists whose son served as a PM. If it is the first case in Pakistan, then it should be emphasized (Unfortunately, I do not have any info in this regard). Otherwise, I could not see any interesting aspect in the fact given in the hook.Egeymi (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- ALT1... that Muhammad Sharif was a Pakistani industrialist and father of former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, and the Chief minister of the Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif?
Review of ALT1 hook needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
References reliable, length long enough to pass minimum, and information basic enough to help readers understand. I have merely made copy editing. Because I added non-free image to help readers identify this person, I give this nomination an AGF instead of green. Nevertheless, I hope the image is not a big issue, and ALT1 may be slightly better than original. If ALT1 is not enough, make other hooks quickly if you can; otherwise, it's been a few or several weeks, and it feels too long already. --George Ho (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
If I read the rules right, this article is not eligible for DYK: The nominator claims that it was an unsourced BLP that was twofold expanded, but this guy died in 2004 - you can't call him Living? (At 22 August the article was 863 character, now it is 1851 chars so it was 2x expanded) Mentoz86 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, although I stand by my prior comment. As I realized, this article existed long ago, and it's not BLP (biography of living person) since 2004. Therefore, despite good efforts, as Mentoz said, if this article doesn't pass 5x soon, then this nomination may fail. --George Ho (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
