Template:Did you know nominations/Kongsberg attack

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 BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Article was posted to ITN, rendering it ineligible for DYK; closing

Kongsberg attack

(

)

... that a man killed 5 people in Norway using a bow and arrow? Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-58906165

Comment: Interesting incident, perfect for DYK.

Created by Love of Corey (talk). Nominated by Heythereimaguy (talk) at 14:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

I agree that it should be posted to DYK, regardless of whether or not it's posted to ITN. The ideology/motive behind the attack should be added if RS report it as fact. Jim Michael (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but no, it can't be posted "regardless". See: Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria section d. It can't be in DYK if it's been in ITN. cart-Talk 22:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It's likely at this point that the discussion will be closed due to a lack of consensus, so...Heythereimaguy (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears the nominator has not done a QPQ. STSC (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As the nominator has no previous DYK credits, they are exempt from that requirement. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I will do a full review of this, it is currently eligible as it is not on ITN right now (and doesn't look like it will be). If this page later ends up on ITN, I will re-review to reject this as per Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria. Note: I am reviewing the current version as of 15 October, so if substantial edits are made after this, they may need to be re-checked

Article is long enough (3724 characters), new enough (created 13 October, nominated 14 October), and article is within policy. The Investigation section appears appropriate per WP:BLPCRIME, as it's stating the facts but also pointing out that a conviction has not yet taken places and so is subject to change. AGF on non-English sources, but they look okay to me

Hook is short enough, interesting (as unusual), in the article and well cited

QPQ exempt, as the user has 0 previous DYK nominations

(DYKtick now removed) Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations (with the caveat that if it gets on the front page of ITN, it will then be ineligible for DYK). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: this article has now featured as a bolded article on ITN, and so is no longer eligible for DYK, as per rule 1d: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)