Template:Did you know nominations/Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego?

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 Montanabw^(talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego?

(

)

... that Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego? is the only state-specific Carmen Sandiego game ever produced?

ALT1:... that only one retail copy of Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego? is known to exist?
ALT2:... that while over 20 states have requested to create state versions of Carmen Sandiego, North Dakota's proposal was the only successful one?
ALT3:... that nobody knew where Carmen Sandiego was until 2016?
ALT4:... that the Wikipedia article on Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego? helped in the rediscovery of the 25 year old game?
ALT5:... that Where in North Dakota Is Carmen Sandiego? is "one of the rarest video games ever made"?
Comment: I think this is a really fascinating piece of video game and North Dakotan history, and we are in the middle of the story at the moment - documents related to the game are currently being rediscovered and a documentary on the game is being created.

Created/expanded by Coin945 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC).

The article isn't new and hasn't been expanded 5x, according to the DYKcheck tool. Were you submitting it under the expansion criteria for DYK? Newly assessed Good Articles are also eligible for DYK--that might be an easier way to get the article eligible. If you can get it eligible, each hook fact will need its own in-line citation right after it is stated in the article (even if it's obvious where the information comes from). Also, it looks like you've had at least five other DYKs, so you'll need to review another DYK submission for the QPQ. I also find this subject interesting, so ping me if you clear up those issues! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Apologies.. in my enthusiastic rush to DYK after heavily improving the article, I forgot to clarify whether the article was indeed eligible or not. I was intending to submit it under the expansion criteria. In terms of having to review another DYK submission for the Quid Pro Quo rule, I am intending to get that done today. I am not sure if this article is ready for a GAN. When the article was first created it was very stubby and would not have been suitable for DYK. Is it at all possible for me to get the article deleted, then recreated with the current content in order to meet DYK criteria (under new article criteria)? That is the only way I can see this interesting piece of history becoming a DYK.--Coin945 (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, please advise on the eligibility of my other current DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Clue Chronicles: Fatal Illusion.--Coin945 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your pain--there are a few articles I've worked on for a long time, but since I expanded them over a series of weeks, they weren't eligible for DYK. I don't think deleting and recreating the article would be a good solution. I use the Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck to see if articles are eligible. You might find it helpful to know that new articles only have to be 5,000 characters to be eligible (not 5,000 words). The easiest way to do this in short work bursts is to work on a new page (or new information) in your sandbox and then add it all at once. Maybe one of the other more experienced DYK editors has advice for you? Getting the article up to GA criteria would be a little bit of work--I might be able to help you expand the citations on my personal account Rwelean.Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)