This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 reviewer, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lamentably, I'll take up this review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is long enough, new enough, sourced appropriately, and has relevant citations adjacent to hook material. I'm counting four DYK noms—manually, so that may be incorrect—so no QPQ necessary. Hook is certainly "interesting". If there's a barnstar for "I hate that you did this, but you did a good job", Knightoftheswords281 earned it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, Earwig came back high but that 40%+ was entirely quotes in an otherwise extensive article, so I see no real issue with regard to the DYK nom. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've unpromoted this per WP:ERRORS. It's not clear to me if this is "let's write a better hook", or "this shouldn't be on DYK at all". I think the later, so tentatively marking this (and not transcluding it back onto the approved list) pending further discussion. @Sojourner in the earth, Black Kite, and Theleekycauldron:RoySmith(talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not immediately persuaded by the WP:DYK#gen4a argument, because no one seriously thinks that Livvy is a child predator. But I would like to point out WP:VOICE, which says that we can't express things as facts if they're just opinions (or memes). The nomination is definitely salvageable, but it's a good question as to whether we can rework something about this incident or whether we'll have to go with something else entirely. The article has issues along similar lines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned on WP:ERRORS, USA Today has repeated the terminology and further clarified "She didn’t literally flirt with Baby Gronk". As best I can tell, this has been a misunderstanding of the context of this event (as well as putting too much stock in internet reactions to said event). The exceptionally modern phraseology is repeated (sometimes with translation into less colloquial terms) in reliable sources and contributes to the notability of the article's subject. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When journalists feel a need (or possibly a legal obligation) to clarify that the meme they're reporting on is not true, I would suggest that's a good reason not to run it on DYK in wiki-voice. See also the NBC source: "While it's all fun and memes on social media, Dunne did not flirt with or try to seduce Madden." Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the item again was a largely quirky entry, I don't see why we ought to be taking this rather unserious statement as literally as possible. Additionally, Baby Gronk himself (or more accurately, his father) labeled the situation using the term "rizz" (see this video which is even linked in the article), and the term "rizz" is largely being used in a rather sarcastic manner; no one is seriously implying that Olivia Dunne and San Miguel are dating, let alone having a sexual relationship. — Knightoftheswords 17:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To survey current opinions: Knightoftheswords281 and I hold the same line that the terminology is appropriate in WikiVoice and well-referenced while theleekycauldron has reservations based on the same, Sojourner in the earth thinks there's a WikiVoice issue alongside an initial concern about making light of a potentially sexualized interaction between a child and an adult, AirshipJungleman29 doesn't think there was any implication in the hook of sexualization, and RoySmith has concerns but has not articulated them again following the present discussion. I think we're at an impasse. Unless someone can provide clear evidence one way or another as to whether we should run this, I defer to the seniority of the DYK regulars and what their consensus judgement is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain how a word meaning "flirt" was understood to mean "having a sexual relationship"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over a month with no action or progress on this nomination, and absent any, I am going with the consensus by the regulars of wikivoice issues and am closing this as unsucessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is long enough, new enough, sourced appropriately, and has relevant citations adjacent to hook material. I'm counting four DYK noms—manually, so that may be incorrect—so no QPQ necessary. Hook is certainly "interesting". If there's a barnstar for "I hate that you did this, but you did a good job", Knightoftheswords281 earned it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
(and not transcluding it back onto the approved list) pending further discussion. @Sojourner in the earth, Black Kite, and Theleekycauldron: RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
