Template:Did you know nominations/Armour of God (film)


 * 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) 16:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a new or newly expanded article or GA; does not qualify for DYK.

Armour of God (film)

 * ... that during the shoot of Armour of God, Jackie Chan fell from a tree branch fracturing his skull down from a rock that almost killed him?



nominated by D'SuperHero (talk). Self-nominated at 13:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Not eligible. Article not expanded 5x or new. Not GA. Nominator has not edited article. This is the second such nomination I've seen by this user. Please could I advise them to view DYK criteria, [] before making further nominations at DYK? Cowlibob (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Comment Despite, here many old articles have older DYKs and here hooks are properly cited. And per policy, The article has a point where Chan had a brutal accident and nearly died. It doesn't have copvio issue, article is long and fair enough. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * And many other such articles are not even GA or new. Please see the list of DYK. Thank You. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 13:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I advised to look at the DYK criteria for a reason. Per the criteria for eligibility, an article must be new ( created in the last 7 days or prose expanded by 5x in the last 7 days or made a GA in the last 7 days). This article does not meet any of these as it was created on May 13, 2004, 5x expanded per the DYK Check tool by April 2, 2006, not a GA. It may be long enough but it is not new enough. BlueMoonset, please could you help clarify this? Cowlibob (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * D'SuperHero, there have been a very few instances lately where—only because the nomination was opened but the nominator forgot to transclude it at the time—the nomination was allowed to start up again. This nomination does not qualify under that very narrow exception, and it certainly doesn't qualify under the standard DYK criteria as Cowlibob has noted. I'm closing this now, and will be closing any other such nominations. I hope you will not be discouraged from making other DYK nominations, but they do have to meet the eligibility criteria that Cowlibob cited. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)