Template:Did you know nominations/FTC v. Balls of Kryptonite


 * 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

FTC v. Balls of Kryptonite

 * ... that even balls of kryptonite are no protection from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission?
 * Reviewed: Balwant Singh Nandgarh
 * Comment: My annual entry in the "humorously named court cases" department

Created by Daniel Case (talk). Self nominated at 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC).


 * The following has been checked in this review by Maile
 * QPQ by Daniel Case
 * Eligibility
 * Article created by Daniel Case on March 5, 2015 and has 10,682 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
 * Falls within the dateline scope of April Fools Day hooks
 * Article is NPOV, currently stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags
 * Sourcing
 * Every paragraph sourced inline and online
 * No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
 * Hook
 * Hook is stated here: "In 2011 the FTC secured a court order barring Karnani and Balls of Kryptonite from engaging in many of the deceptive business practices that had brought him to the agency's attention" and sourced 1
 * Image
 * No image used in the DYK nomination
 * Tools
 * All citations individually checked with Duplication Detector. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found.

Good 2 Go for April Fools Day. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)