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 SL93 (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment: This nomination could be a procedural fail, but I've decided to go forward with it regardless.
There was an article for this subject created by Billy Hathorn in July 2011. Those who've been around here long enough know that BH was banned from DYK for copyright violations, banned from the entire project, and many of their created articles, like the RWE Jones article, were deleted earlier in 2021. I have recreated this article, and if you have the access to view the deleted version, you can see that my prose is brand new. The reason I say this may need to be failed is that the article with copyright violations did appear on DYK in July 2011. I asked for people's views on this article's eligibility on WT:DYK and didn't get much response. I recreated the article and initially did not think I'd nominate it for DYK. Now that I have, I feel that my article is sufficiently different, I used sources I found myself, and I'm proposing different (and IMO more interesting) hooks. DYKUpdateBot hasn't put a DYK template on the talk page. I believe the past DYK appearance is nullified by its deletion for copyright violation, as this article hasn't been on DYK. If you don't agree, I hope it's an WP:IAR situation on WP:DYKCRIT #1d to go forward, but I respect a rejection as well.
Created by Muboshgu (talk). Self-nominated at 18:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC).
This is an extremely interesting case. Having looked through the article, I have no problems with it and would be happy to do a formal review and almost certainly approve. I personally strongly believe this should be allowed to rerun -- it's a completely different article with an improved hook and the prior article ran a decade ago. I'd like a couple other thoughts on it, though. Vaticidalprophet 05:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I second this. I am the editor who sent this article to WP:CP as part of the Hathorn cleanup and have confirmed that not a drop of Hathorn's ink remains in this article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Overall: My opinion is that, since this is a completely new article, it qualifies. Also, per WP:DYKSG point A4, "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." Since the entire previous article was deleted as a copyright violation, and since that is an exception allowed under the criteria, that can be discarded for the purposes of this DYK. Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Epicgenius, thanks! We'll see if the prep builders agree. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
My opinion is that, since this is a completely new article, it qualifies. Also, per WP:DYKSG point A4, "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." Since the entire previous article was deleted as a copyright violation, and since that is an exception allowed under the criteria, that can be discarded for the purposes of this DYK. Epicgenius (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)