Template:Did you know nominations/Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc.
- 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 Allen3 talk 09:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Omega World Travel, Inc. v. Mummagraphics, Inc. edit
- ... that in Omega World Travel v. Mummagraphics, the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (seal pictured) limited the scope of federal anti-spam law?
Created by Reena.bajpai (talk). Nominated by Rua2006 (talk) at 20:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC).
- Expansion started on March 5, so I moved the nomination accordingly. George Ho (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It was expanded five times between January and March and not in one day or one edit in total, but I guess that would still qualifiy. I am not actually seeing that the court limited the scope of the Anti-Spam law and I have read it repeatedly. If someone can point out exactly where that is listed I will reconsider my review - which is why I am not just saying "No". MPJ -US 23:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- The article was moved from user space to article space on March 6, so that is the date on which the article is considered to be created by DYK. As it was nominated on March 12, fewer than seven days later, it is clearly new enough. The hook's "limited the scope" does need to be in the article with effectively that wording; while the final sentence of the "Reactions" section would seem to indicate that this is probably true, it is insufficient, and furthermore it uses the WP:WEASEL "Some commented" right before a sourced quote that is the product of a single person, and thus only his opinion. (I have pinged both nominator and creator; neither has edited since mid-March, but I'm hoping they'll return soon.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It has been over a week, and while Rua2006 still hasn't edited since the original review, Reena.bajpai edited the day after I pinged the talk page, yet has not responded in the seven days since. Marking this for closure due to lack of response. If either does respond before this is closed, the review can be continued. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
