- 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) 07:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Article has not been 5x expanded
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Mummies edit
- ... that The Mummies were influential in starting a movement known as "budget rock" in San Francisco in the 1990s? Source: [1]
5x expanded by TheGracefulSlick (talk). Self-nominated at 06:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC).
This article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days according to DKY check. Full review:
- Hook: is short enough, NPOV, and interesting
- NPOV: article is NPOV
- Sourcing: source is inline cited to AllMusic and calls the Mummies the "The once and future kings of budget rock"
- Plagiarism: Earwig indicates a 47% chance of plagerism form [2], but i read the linked article, whis is an interview and do not see anything that matches heavily with it.
- Image: none
- QPQ: still needed
- Newness: Article has not been created or expanded 5x or promoted to Good Article within the past 10 days
- Length: yes
Found5dollar (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - Found5dollar the article has been completely re-written and re-sourced. Perhaps BLP would have been more appropriate for me to list it as? As for QPQ, I still have less than five DYK credits to my name so, as of now, I can bypass that step.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- TheGracefulSlick,I am unsure if a band page qualifies as a BPL, but even so, it does not meet the BPL criteria. The DKY Rules state "a previously unsourced biography of a living person (BLP) with its readable prose expanded at least twofold" may be included, but this article has not been expanded twofold (from 3447 characters before your expansion, to the current 5141), and it did have sources prior to your expansion [3].Found5dollar (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Found5dollar yes but you are ignoring the fact I had to remove trivial information from the page (example: Every single time the group had a one-off reunion) and that I needed to remove the unreliable source Discogs.com from the discography so measuring it by characters is very misleading. This is an entirely different article with an interesting hook. It's not too encouraging to be denied simply because of a lack of characters when I vastly improved the article. That is, after all, what DYK partly aims for.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- TheGracefulSlick, DYK has operated with these rules for a very long time: either new and at least 1500 prose characters, or pre-existing with a 5x expansion from its prior size. Found5dollar has to follow the rules when reviewing. As it says here,
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article.
What we do offer, if you aren't able to do a fivefold expansion, is the ability to nominate articles that have been improved to the point that they are listed as Good Articles, so the size of the expansion doesn't matter, just the quality of the article as shown by its listing as a GA. I don't take any pleasure in this, but this article simply doesn't meet the DYK criteria by a significant margin. The same is true with the your nomination of Every Mother's Son. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- TheGracefulSlick, DYK has operated with these rules for a very long time: either new and at least 1500 prose characters, or pre-existing with a 5x expansion from its prior size. Found5dollar has to follow the rules when reviewing. As it says here,
- Found5dollar yes but you are ignoring the fact I had to remove trivial information from the page (example: Every single time the group had a one-off reunion) and that I needed to remove the unreliable source Discogs.com from the discography so measuring it by characters is very misleading. This is an entirely different article with an interesting hook. It's not too encouraging to be denied simply because of a lack of characters when I vastly improved the article. That is, after all, what DYK partly aims for.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)