Template:Did you know nominations/2.0 (film)

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: rejected by Jolly Ω Janner 05:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

2.0 (film)

(

)

... that the forthcoming science fiction film, 2.0, will be the most expensive Indian film to date?

ALT1:... that the forthcoming science fiction film, Shankar's 2.0, is a sequel to Enthiran (2010)?
ALT2:... that the makers of India's most expensive film, 2.0, held discussions with Arnold Schwarzenegger before finalising Akshay Kumar to play the antagonist?
Comment: India's most expensive ever film / big star cast + technical team / a sequel to Enthiran

Created/expanded by Editor 2050 (talk). Self-nominated at 11:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

Article not new nor expanded 5x within 7 days of the nomination time article at 17:35 UTC on December 14, 2015. Please make sure to check the DYK rules before nominating another article in the future ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit - actually it did. It was recreated on December 11, 2015 as seen here [1] - previously it had been a redirect page. Well now that you've removed it, without properly checking the article's history, it has sort of removed this article's chances of being featured on DYK. Sigh - can you change your decision?

. Editor 2050 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor 2050 – the nomination was on December 22, 11 days after the article's re-creation. The work needs to have been done within a week (7 days) of the nomination for it to be valid. If you improve the article to good article status, you can renominate it for DYK in the future, but I'd imagine you'd have to wait for the film to release and all that comes with that. If the nomination was just a few days earlier, it would have been good to go. I'm sorry, but that's sadly how it goes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not only was the nomination late, but the article had rather significant content (see [2]) before being turned into a redirect, and the current version has not been expanded 5x. -Zanhe (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)