Template:Did you know nominations/John F. Gaffney

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

John F. Gaffney

(

)

... that a 1994 John F. Gaffney proposal would have allowed Donald Trump to own four Atlantic City casino licenses, even though all three of his casino properties there had recent bankruptcy filings?

Reviewed: Textile industry in China

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self-nominated at 13:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC).

New enough and long enough, inline citations and references checks, factual and interesting hooks, close paraphrasing and neutrality is checked as well and approved. Good work, well done! This one is good to go.BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Could we please either use a hook not involving Trump, or delay putting this on the front page of Wikipedia until after the November 8 election, so as not to look like a violation of WP:DYKNOT A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches). Right now, Trump's business deals and political affiliations are part of the campaign dialogues, both directions, and he's under investigation for same. Of course, Trump is a small part of this article, so maybe there could be a hook that doesn't mention him. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The hook stands on its own, is properly sourced and is the best hook of the article. If Maile66 hadn't been making blatant bad faith assumptions about my motives and had taken a look at my recent editing history in systematically creating new articles for state legislators, perhaps the DYKNOT accusation would have been eliminated and the DYK nomination might have been evaluated on its merits, rather than on one editor's preconceptions. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be censored, but I'm willing to wait until November 9, if necessary, to deal with these bad faith allegations. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn you have misunderstood. Your personal abilities and motives have never been in question. And neither has the accuracy of the article or hook. Wikipedia has a standard rule about elections at WP:DYK Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.. Since my original posting here, a consensus has been reached to extend that 30 days to be effective immediately. This is not about you personally, or any reflection on your work. You are welcome to join the current conversation at Here. No bad faith. — Maile (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile66, fair enough. If a moratorium has been or will be imposed, then I will wait until November 9. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn Thank you for your understanding. The only reason I mentioned coming up with a different hook, was so this could show up on the main page sooner. I believe every author works hard on their articles nominated and would like to see the earliest possible appearance on the main page. I'll move this to the special holding area of the nominations. Should you change your mind about the hook, please ping me. — Maile (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)