Template:Did you know nominations/List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom[edit]

(
)

Created by Lionelt (talk). Self-nominated at 05:14, 1 February 2018 (UTC).

  • Article is new enough (Creation Date January 30), Long enough (DYK check has it approximately 269 words) Earwig Copyvio has it at a 16.7 confidence (Inflated due to use of of titles of the court and quotes). Well sourced all throughout including the hook. Hook is long and interesting enough. QPQ has been met. Good to go from my eyes! Nice job and a very interesting read! --Church Talk 23:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed TRM's assessment of the situation and regrettably he is correct, this was in fact copied from ADF. At some point in my off-wiki notes I accidentally transposed the dates that I (1) expanded the Cases section in main article ADF 1/22/18 and (2) created new List of ADF Cases 1/30/18. This should not have been nominated for DYK. I apologize to all editors who participated in this nom especially Church.– Lionel(talk) 02:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Marking as unsuccessful as this was not new but copied from a pre-existing article. Lionelt, you will want to document the copying on the talk page of this article and its source; see WP:Copying within Wikipedia on the issues involved and how to repair the omission of proper credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  1. With lists, criteria #1.a. does not apply to list entries. 2.c. says "Lists: Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose, aside from the listed items themselves."
  2. The Lead of the list, i.e. the prose part, is completely my own work, is new, is 1500 chars, and it passed DYKCHECK according to Church's original review.
Based on Criteria 2.c. I respectfully request that this DYK be placed back into the queue. – Lionel(talk) 05:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not visible unless you're in the editor and can see commented-out text. I don't think that meets Wikipedia standards, which talk about being noted in the article history or templated on the article talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Attribution added to talk with this edit [2] – Lionel(talk) 07:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi just wondering if anyone has an estimate when this will go back in the queue... @The Rambling Man: Thanks – Lionel(talk) 05:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Are you happy to reverse your decision to close this as unsuccessful? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Cwmhiraeth, this is an odd situation where a section of an article that is quite long but technically doesn't have prose (though the list contains about 6000 characters of text) is split off and has 1600-odd characters of prose intro added to it. The fact that 2.c. specifies the minimum of 1500 prose characters for lists does not mean it doesn't have to meet the other expansion rules (as this is a split, 1.a. applies insofar as this article does not count as new; it needs to meet the 5x expansion rules, which, as I noted, it technically does). It seems to me that WP:DYKSG#D13 might apply here simply because of the proportion of what's new to the article versus what's split off from the pre-existing article. What I don't know is what the discussions were that led to these guidelines. Perhaps one of the old-timers like Gatoclass remember, and could give an opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As it happens, the article is mostly new. Only 11 list entries were copied from the original article. The new list contains a total of 26 entries: 15 of those are new and were written by me and only reside in the new list. Add to this almost 1700 chars of new prose and you have an excellent candidate for DYK. The purpose of DYK is to encourage content creation. If we're going to fail DYKs based on ambiguous policies and tortured, technical readings of complex rules and regulations then we will exasperate and discourage the very people we're trying to motivate. If an editor nominates a DYK in good faith we should approve it barring any egregious, overriding, obvious policy violations. – Lionel(talk) 23:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Lionelt makes a very good case for allowing the DYK to proceed and I would be in favour of doing so, especially as he is the sort of non-regular contributor that DYK is trying to encourage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm withdrawing my objection since the bulk of the list is new and the prose appears to be new as well. If The Rambling Man still has objections to this running given Lionelt's summary of what was done with the article and the subsequently placed attribution, he should specify them now. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we please add this back to the queue @The Rambling Man:. I am so close to my DYK25 Medal. Thank you! – Lionel(talk) 02:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sure we can. You'll need to ask someone who builds sets. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/List_of_court_cases_involving_Alliance_Defending_Freedom&oldid=830865692"