Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Charlie Challenge


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Charlie Challenge

 * ... that the Charlie Charlie Challenge was used in a viral marketing campaign for The Gallows?


 * ALT1:... that the Charlie Charlie Challenge is a "killer case study in virality"? Yunshui 雲 水 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reviewed: Fred Baker (physician)

Created by Yunshui (talk). Self-nominated at 09:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article new enough, long enough, and adequately cited. Hook short enough, interesting enough, and also cited. Article appears to be neutral and free of copyright violations and plagiarism. Cheers!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have pulled this hook from prep for now as the article is the subject of an npov dispute. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Article has been extensively revised since original review, and so much material has been added that it's almost twice as long as it was (3592 to 6992 prose characters). Under the circumstances, I think a completely new review is in order, since the new material could have close paraphrasing, be insufficiently cited, or other issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Since the disputes seem to have settled down on this article now, I might do a little cleanup and add a little content myself, so I will just put this on hold temporarily until I have done so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Original dates and length check out (and current version is even longer), article is thoroughly cited, avoids close paraphrasing, and both hooks are interesting and directly cited. Tone of current prose is neutral and appears to be with policy. QPQ checks out okay. I've boldly added a second author credit for User:Callinus who made significant contributions to the article after the original creator. - Dravecky (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)