Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Brooks (gymnast)

From blackwiki
< Template:Did you know nominations
Revision as of 16:58, 7 January 2012 by imported>TCO (It's OK. No one is debating the failure.)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chris Brooks (gymnast)

  • Reviewed: C. A. Patrides
  • Comment: Request Swahili exemption for the time period. Made stub in early December. Another author expanded it just now. He is a newbie...let's get him a DYK.

Created/expanded by Brunettekoala (talk), Nominated by TCO (talk) at 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Expansion is only about 3x (from [1] to [2]). There is no precedent for waiving the basic DYK criteria just because an editor is new. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like it considered as a new article, not an expansion. Has been less than a month. My understanding is that the time limits could be "Swahili'd" (and we did have some text about that for new submitters). In the past, I have seen us be pretty generous on the time limit. And it is under a month.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment It's been a bit long for the Swahili exemption. Perhaps an alternative approach - I see that the original stub had no inline references, only 2 sources listed as "references." Perhaps it could be squeezed in as an expansion of an unreferenced BLP . . . which only requires twofold? Yngvadottir (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
That could be kind (like the old DYK, I remember). FYI, I have removed my name from the nom, to make it clear that I am trying to help the newb, not me. TCO (Reviews needed) 18:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Nothing is changed. The pre-expansion version of the article already had references. The article simply does not qualify for DYK. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Friendly editor TCO asked me to take a look. I agree that it's great for WP to give the first DYK to a new editor, and am glad that TCO improved the references to in-line, etc. Let me know if I can help in the future.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that the article is ineligible. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK, man. Kiefs was just putting in an appearance as I asked him to a long time ago. I appreciate that you looked at it and no one is coming down on you for failing it. Be of good cheer. We are comrades.TCO (Reviews needed) 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)