Template:Did you know nominations/The Torist
- 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: promoted by North America1000 02:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Torist[edit]
- ... that Tor has a literary review called The Torist?
- ... that the dark web has a literary review called The Torist?
- ... that The Torist is a literary review that can only be reached through Tor?
- ... that The Torist is a literary review that can only be reached through the dark web?
Created by Distrait cognizance (talk). Self-nominated at 20:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC).
Not long enough with less than 1,500 characters readable prose. Also, not sure why this needs a standalone article. Can very well be merged into parent article itself given its size and that it has two quotes in it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Dharmadhyaksha - What on earth do you mean with parent article? Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for ambiguity. I meant Tor (anonymity network). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- That has really no relation at all though... Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for ambiguity. I meant Tor (anonymity network). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Second opinion requested - The article has since been expanded and is now over 1500 letters of prose, (even though it was so previously, the DYK check tool does not count quoted items in templates). Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Date and length fine. I see no reason that it shouldn't be a stand alone article, the only link to Tor (anonymity network) is that that is where it is published (to me that's the equivalent of saying Wikipedia should be merged with World Wide Web). Citations are fine and no copyvio detected. Suggest using the fourth option (with a link to dark web added) as it's more hooky - Basement12 (T.C) 23:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
