Template:Did you know nominations/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes

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) 06:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes

(

)

~~... that S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes, Pittsburgh's oldest specialty toy store, is reportedly haunted and sells nostalgic toys?~~ Source: here, here, there "oldest" 185–186 finally
- ALT1:... that Pittsburgh's S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes – in business for 50 years – is a specialty toy store that is reportedly haunted and sells nostalgic toys? Source: "fifty years" here "founded in 1970" and there"haunted" here and there
- ALT2:... that after 50 years, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes is a Pittsburgh landmark?
- ALT3:... that after 50 years, S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes is both a landmark and a stop on the 'haunted Pittsburgh' tour?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Phil Lyne
Comment: author6 has been blocked as a sock. But he started the article, and it was the subject of an AFD. The deletion discussion link Article has been collaboratively improved, and AFD was withdrawn.

Created by 7&6=thirteen (talk), GreenC (talk), Lightburst (talk), Meatsgains (talk), Dream Focus (talk), and KittyCatRosco (talk). Nominated by 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry; I have re-nominated this article at AFD. – Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

We're sorry, too. I've replied at your latest hit job/chop job. Ink wasn't even dry from the last AFD, which you sat out. We'll just have to let that play out. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Saying that the toy store is "reportedly haunted" implies that someone/people in fact saw some sort of apparition or other surreal occurrence. For all we know these claims are something of a promotion ploy. Ie. staff members feeling "drained". The staff? Unless this a big or highly controversial issue, with numerous people claiming that the store is actually "haunted", it seems we should not placate the employee rumors and just mention that the toy store is a half century old and is a landmark of sorts, which is more than interesting enough. It's understood that the "haunted" claim is an attention grabber, but here at WP it seems sort of a sappy way to get people to read the article. This is not my review, but another basic hook would be in order and in that event, imo, the article would be good to go on all other accounts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:Snow Keep 2nd deletion nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomomination is not the place for AFD rebuttle, and accusations. Please take this stuff to the article talk page.

Don’t lie. It wasn’t snow. And while you and your ARS canvassing club might be able to block-vote promotional articles and prevent them from being deleted, I still hope someone in the DYK chain has the good sense not to allow this toy store advertisement on the main page. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

There is community consensus from two AFDs the article is notable ie. not an advertisement. The consensus of over 15 people should be honored, even if the losing AfD nominator doesn't like it. The article is extremely well sourced and has been worked on intensively by many people who have no COI with the store. -- GreenC 17:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently you can't count either. 13 KEEPS vs. 4 DELETES, and disregarding the First AFD. You wouldn't know a snow storm/blizzard if you were in one. The second AFD was patently abusive and a waste of a lot of valuable editor effort. That there were coincidental article improvements does not justify it.

Your other remarks here are just irrelevant B.S. You continue your disruption. Sour grapes for the outcome. WP:Dead horses.

Indeed, User: Levivich the nominator fancies himself as a would be WP:RFA. I know I will keep that in mind. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Ipse dixit and Liberum veto have no application here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Great article. Notable Pittsburgh landmark. I do not believe in ghosts, but I think the ATL3 is great. With respect for Gwillhickers opinion on the "haunted" tag. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

ALT3, with the phrase, "...a stop on the 'haunted Pittsburgh' tour", is fair enough. At least we're not saying as fact that the store is haunted or citing someone who said it was haunted. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough. Hooks are interesting but ALT3 is neutral and most appropriate if we are going to mention the idea of haunted. There are more than enough sources to support the hook, as well as the article. No close para-phrasing. QPQ done. No dup links. Photo of store has a creative commons license. However, the logo/image in the info-box is a fair use image. It was my understanding that fair use images are not allowed in DYK nominations. Will need a second opinion before I pass the nom'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. So far as I know, nobody has asked to post the photograph or the logo on the main page. Did I miss something? Or is this part of the review and the lack of a green tick in error? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

After checking, a fair use image is allowed in the article so long as the image is not not displayed on the main page in a DYK presentation. Good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)