Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Cowdrey
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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 PFHLai (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Matthew Cowdrey
[edit]- ... that five time 2008 Summer Paralympics gold medalist and world record setter Matthew Cowdrey carried Australia's flag during the Games' closing ceremony?
- Reviewed: Ayu Ting Ting
- Comment: BLP expansion. Was 412 words/2517 B at 11 July with cleanup notice and one citation for whole article. On 4 November 2011, article gutted to be BLP violation free. Had 59 words/328 characters. Expanded on 13 November 2011 to 956 words/5779 characters.
Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk). Self nom at 04:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- Alt1: ... that Australian Matthew Cowdrey set five world records in the process of winning five gold medals at the 2008 Summer Paralympics?
- Alt2: ... that Australian multiple Paralympic gold medalist Matthew Cowdrey is studying law at Australian National University?
I'm not sure that this article qualifies for DYK as it cannot really be considered new at the date in question (November12th not November 13th). Nor does the submitter seem to have reviewed another article despite having multiple previous DYKs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- The rule is "had its prose portion expanded at least twofold (only applies to BLPs that were completely unreferenced before expansion)", as noted in the edit notice on all DYK nominations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you don't feel the article qualifies, then please feel free to fail the article for not meeting the standards. I nominated thinking it met them, and could have been wrong. The 19 July version had one sentence cited. The article at that time was 412 words long, of which only 34 were actually sourced. On 4 November, the article was gutted and all uncited BLP text was removed. This left an article with 59 words and 328 characters. On 13 November, the article was 956 words and 5,779 characters. I nominated based on that as the total words was 16 fold expansion based on the article being completed cited. The uncited 19 July version was 412 words and 2,517 characters. (With only 34 words having been cited.) That for me meant double expansion once those 34 words are removed. That was my understanding of why I nominated it based on 5x/2x BLP. And yeah, if you disagree, no problem. :) I am okay with the article not being a DYK as I may have misunderstood the math and what 2x uncited expansion meant. Mistakes occassionally happen. --LauraHale (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... personally, I don't think most of the content that was removed could be classified as "contentious" per WP:BLP. Of course, it is a fantastic expansion... just wonder if IAR would be allowed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
As much as it is a shame, I think I have to agree with Crisco 1492: it simply doesn't meet the rules. I wanted to apply IAR and approve it anyway, but I think it is a slippery slope from there. Harrias talk 12:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
