Template:Did you know nominations/Florence v. Shurtleff


 * 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 Allen3 talk 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Insufficient progress toward resolving outstanding issues

Florence v. Shurtleff

 * ... that a federal court held that individuals cannot be prosecuted for posting constitutionally protected content for adults on general-access websites?

Created/expanded by Bundaberger (talk). Self-nominated at 07:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article created in userspace and moved to main space. Large enough. However, there are problems with citation style as noted by the orange tag. This needs to be cleaned up before it can be promoted. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: it's been two weeks since the above and the original ping to Bundaberger's talk page; I've just added another ping there, noting that time is just about out. If some action isn't taken within a couple of days, we'll have to close this. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Another five days have passed. Marking the nomination to be closed as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)