Template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Waller (soldier)
- 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 Allen3 talk 16:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nathan Waller (soldier)
[edit]- ... that according to legend, Nathan Waller once killed a bear with only a pine knot?
Moved to mainspace by Jakec (talk). Self-nominated at 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
I sorta question whether this meets GNG, but that's not a criteria for DYK, all of which this meets. GO! LavaBaron (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Please list review details, as a courtesy to the nominator, especially if meant to be used as a QPQ. Please don't leave room for this being pulled from promotion because of inadequate review. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)- Everything checks out - good to go! LavaBaron (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- @LavaBaron: you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I, LavaBaron, do hereby explicitly and unambiguously confirm, with neither apprehension nor misgiving as to the veracity of the assertion, and with a firm and unshakable belief that brooks no hesitation in its utterance, that the five main DYK criteria have been met in the matter of this nomination (AKA "everything checks out"). Further, I hereby assert that a copy of this declaration has been signed in wet ink, notarized, and submitted - via certified post (return receipt requested) - to the registered agent of the Wikimedia Foundation for archive and filing as a permanent record of the completeness of this review. Signed in my hand on this, the 19th day of October in the Year our Lord, Two Thousand and Fifteen, and of Wikipedia the Fourteenth - LavaBaron (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- New reviewer needed. The is just rambling and tells us nothing about what was checked. DYK review instructions
please begin with one of the 6 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed.
Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYKReviewing guide — Maile (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- As per administrator ruling here, it's been determined no further review is needed. This is cleared for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was no such administrator ruling or determination; reinstating Maile's request for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- A discussion in DYK Talk has failed consensus that the review is unacceptable; I don't want to engage in vote-counting but, to make things concise, I'll note 4 editors have proferred the belief it is acceptable, 4 have objected, and 2 have unclear opinions. For lack of a consensus to overturn the review, it is clear for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: LavaBaron You mentioned that the article might not meet GNG. Then why would you promote it? If an article should be deleted, then it shouldn't be put on the main page. If the article subject is notable, but the article doesn't demonstrate this notability, then it does not meet verifiablity concerns, and thus would not, as currently standing, qualify for DYK.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)