Template:Did you know nominations/Boschetto v. Hansing


 * 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) 01:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No action in four weeks.

Boschetto v. Hansing

 * ... that you are safe and just a contract is not enough to make you suable?

Created/expanded by Anshulmwiki (talk). Nominated by Malikepolat (talk) at 04:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment: The hook needs to be rewrite as per DYK rules.--Gfosankar (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I got the hook into a proper DYK format. M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  18:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough and long enough. The hook is sourced to reliable sources and I have detected no policy issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg There are a number of policy issues with this article that have caused the hook to be removed from prep: all of the sources are primary—the information is exclusively taken directly from court decisions, with no use of the secondary sources that are Wikipedia's mainstay. In violation of DYK norms, there is no sourcing whatever for the very large Background section or for the Appellate Court's holding section that follows. There's also an external link in the final paragraph of the Interactive websites subsection. Finally, as has been noted in WT:DYK discussion, "you are safe" isn't explained at all in the article, and is not supported: who is supposed to be safe and why? BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Nomination appears to have been abandoned. Other than the addition of a single sentence that does practically nothing to address highlighted issues and some template maintenance, there has been no progress in resolving the problems that are blocking this nomination during the last 3 weeks.  Nominator has not not edited since April 1, and as he is here as part of a class project, and the current term at his school ends this week, it is unlikely that he will return to work on this article any time soon. --Allen3 talk 10:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)