Template:Did you know nominations/John Gray (nightwatchman)
- 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 BuySomeApples (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
John Gray (nightwatchman)
- ... that the owner of Greyfriars Bobby was a nightwatchman called John Gray?
- ALT1:... that John Gray was the owner of Greyfriars Bobby?
- ALT2:... that despite being portrayed as a shepherd in the 1912 novel Greyfriars Bobby and subsequent movie adaptations, that John Gray actually worked for the Edinburgh City Police as a nightwatchman?
Created by Sahaib3005 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
DYK does not feature stubs. Please have a read of the rules, in particular #2 (Long enough) under eligibility criteria. Schwede66 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Schwede66:, It has over 1,500 characters, so that means it should be allowed.Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- You really need to read the rules a bit more carefully. What counts for Wikipedia is "prose" and as the rules explain, that excludes a lot of things: "(ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.)". I have one of those tools mentioned on that page installed and it tells me that prose size is 1112 B, i.e. you are way short of the minimum. That said, if you expand the article now that you know that it's too short, most editors at DYK would say that's ok (although technically you need to achieve the minimum length within seven days of the article being in mainspace). Up to you. Schwede66 08:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- I have concerns about the notability of this article. The notability relates entirely to Greyfriars Bobby, and so relevant information should probably go into that page (WP:NOPAGE). CMD (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I haven't even read the article yet. Therefore, I can't comment on notability. Schwede66 09:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- The DYKcheck tool also shows 1112 bytes, well short of the required 1500. That said, if the "In popular culture" section was changed from a list to prose, I think that would get the article to 1500, or at least very close (since lists are excluded from the count). Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Rlendog: I prosified the section–it meets the length requirement now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Now that I have read the article and looked at the sources, I agree with CMD that a merger is the best way forward. I suggest that for the time being, we park this nomination. If the community discussion determines that Gray is independently notable, we can pick the review process up again. Schwede66 03:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Both the "Must See Scotland" and "Scotland Welcomes You" sites are self-published, as best I can determine, and therefore cannot be considered reliable. There seems to be little enough in the way of verifiable information about John Gray himself; the bulk of what's here is about the legend of the dog, and a merge with the dog's article seems in order. (The icon used and the hold on the nomination while the merger is being discussed is the standard way to handle proposed merges here at DYK.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note that the formal merge proposal is discussed at Talk:Greyfriars Bobby#Proposed merge of John Gray (nightwatchman) into Greyfriars Bobby. It has not yet attracted much attention and I have thus informed the relevant WikiProjects. If DYK volunteers are interested in the matter, please contribute. Schwede66 17:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Given the merger discussion and how there has been no progress with the nomination in weeks, it appears there's no longer a path forward for this at this time. Marking for closure given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, but while a merger discussion is ongoing, the nomination should not be marked for closure until it concludes one way or the other. Restoring prior marking, which is the correct one while a nomination is awaiting the conclusion of a merger or AfD. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- I would respectfully disagree in this case considering the article issues that are currently existing regardless of the merge discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)