Template:Did you know nominations/Donald R. Dwight

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn

Donald R. Dwight[edit]

5x expanded by Hirolovesswords (talk). Self nominated at 05:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC).

  • I'm sorry but your David Bosco "review" did not fulfill quid pro quo. Your rejection of the hook on invalid criteria would necessitate more details on what actual DYK criteria was "reviewed". A valid review is required for QPQ— Maile (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Hook must be "likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". Voting no a nomination for being boring is valid under H7 at Wikipedia:HOOK. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
  • The hook being boring does not warrant a cross, it is not "completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible". I would give it a ? as it is only a minor issue, "DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed". Thanks, Matty.007 17:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Vote has been amended and ALT has been proposed. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    Length, date, and general compliance with policy all check out. Fact has been verified by provided inline citation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hang on - this hook's focus is a negative fact about an apparent living person (the "first choice"). This is particularly concerning given that the individual in question is named in the article but doesn't have an article, so we've little evidence of notability and little sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    The individual in question is notable because, as a former state representative, he meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    Great, but this is still a negative fact about a living person, and one who isn't even the subject of this article and doesn't yet have a sourced bio on Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd rather withdraw this nomination than continue on. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)