Template:Did you know nominations/Go Eun-bi


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Resolution of merge discussion was to merge (although given that the majority opposed this, it is hard to understand the closer's claom of consensus. Closing the nomination.

Go Eun-bi

 * ... that Go Eun-bi (pictured) was a member of the South Korean girl group Ladies' Code until her death in a car accident on 3 September 2014?
 * Reviewed Ghory and Dixit

Created by Deoma12 (talk), BabbaQ (talk). Nominated by BabbaQ (talk) at 21:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
 * She could hardly be a member of the group after her death, but aside from that, this nomination feels a bit ghoulish, as the poor woman hasn't even been cremated yet. (I know there isn't anything against the rules in submitting the article for DYK, but imagine how you'd feel if it was news of your relation's recent death appearing in the main page's quirky trivia section). Belle (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The nom points out that "she was a member". And as you yourself points out, there are no rules against submitting this article for DYk. Also the subjects death is no obstacle, just recently the article Willem Witteveen and the hook there was accepted. That the "victim" this time is a young beautiful girl makes no difference than had she been an old man etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that I've pointed out that there is no rule against it is missing the point. Consider the purpose of showing the article in DYK. I won't be approving it as I find the idea of displaying it in DYK distasteful. Belle (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not have to approve it yourself. Someone else can do that. We have posted several other articles concerning similar hooks. Your personal opinion does not trump the Wikipedia guidelines and rules on the matter. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody else can indeed do it; I'd encourage them not to. Belle (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't you review an article on the Auschwitz Sonderkommando? I couldn't even bear to look at that one, much less review it.
 * If by that you are suggesting I have double standards, then you are way off base and I find it quite insulting. (I only give myself 10 take-offense points to hand out each month and you've made me use them all in one go). Belle (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, I was suggesting no such thing. I merely meant that you may have different standards. (And that I'm kind of hoping that will move that one to a prep area.) Unsure if you can get your points back though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for going off on one then. I can't get the points back and I can't even swear about not being able to get them back as I must now be in a happy mood for the rest of the month. (I wouldn't have had any problem with reviewing this article, I just thought it was inappropriate for DYK, so wouldn't approve it. The hook is poorly phrased, but since the article is almost certainly going to merged we don't need to worry about that.) Belle (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Article is new enough (3 September), long enough (2,326 characters), fully referenced. I've created a cropped version of the image, which has a valid licence and OTRS. QPQ done. Hook verified against online reliable source in ref 13, although it would be better if ref 11 were not a blog. However, per Supplementary rule D3, References in the article must not be bare URLs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that there is a propose to merge this article to Ladies' Code. &mdash;   Revicomplaint?  07:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I measured present iteration (take note below) at 2,141 characters. Satisfies the number rule of 1,500+ characters, except these 2,141 characters are virtually content-free except for her death. I did not even read a case for notability here. Article leaves me with no clue about basis of her fame.
 * Also, "2013-2014: Debut with Ladies' Code" section is uncited.
 * DYK? No way!

Georgejdorner (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)