Template:Did you know nominations/Lyle Stevik

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 Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lyle Stevik

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Lyle Stevik's true identity has never been discovered?

• Comment: Article remained in userspace until published on 27 December

Created by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 18:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC).

• I hate to say this, since I think these "unidentified person" articles could do some good in the world, but I'm concerned about the licensing status of the image. Is the image really the "own work" of the editor uploading it? EEng (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Image has been on Commons since September 2014, so I will WP:AGF that in a world where image manipulating software is so prevalent, it is not real issue as a "rendering" for a non-living person. Article is long enough, new enough, and sourced enough. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't understand what you're saying, and I'm afraid I need to insist. The claimed licensing makes no sense that I can see. BlueMoonset? Crisco 1492? EEng (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio. The image was posted to a forum more than two weeks before it was uploaded here. Furthermore, I'd expect that self-made reconstructions would fall under our WP:OR policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• The image was created by the uploader. Should I see if I can get an OTRS request? If that doesn't work, could it be uploaded under a non-free license on WP?--GouramiWatcher^(?) 15:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't this WP:ONEEVENT? Perhaps it should be re-formatted as 'Death of Lyle..."? Igor the bunny (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I would agree, he was famous for one event, his death, but it honestly would feel a bit strange if the article was "death/suicide of ..." because Lyle Stevik was not his real name. Going with only the name was my preference when I created the article. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 23:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Article is currently nominated for deletion but has a unanimous "keep" status (so far). --GouramiWatcher^(?) 17:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• AfD closed as Keep. MichaelQSchmidt, now that there is no more image and notability has been established, did you want to complete the review? (I didn't see any mention of checking for close paraphrasing earlier.) Thanks. Note that Gourami Watcher has four DYKs to the main page, and two current nominations including this one. One of these two nominations will require a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• A QPQ will be required after all. I missed one of the archived DYKs, so there are at least five prior DYKs on the main page. Gourami Watcher, you'll need to provide a quid pro quo review for this nomination and for your other active nomination as well. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gourami Watcher: It's been a month since the last comment but a QPQ has not been supplied. Are you still working on this nomination? Fuebaey (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fuebaey: I've had a discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Hieromonk Mardarije but haven't gotten a response about the QPQ. --GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Gourami Watcher, Fuebaey, it seems to me that the QPQ has been supplied, in this case the one for the Hegumen Mardarije article in the double nomination cited above. (The Hieromonk Mardarije article's QPQ is being used on another nomination.) There are a few things to wrap up there, but that's up to the nominator, so this should not be further delayed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Full review needed, now that notability, image, and QPQ issues have been addressed. (Original review did not mention a check for close paraphrasing, so this needs to be included in the new review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• New enough, long enough, adequately sourced, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. Hook ref verified and cited inline. QPQ done. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)