Template:Did you know nominations/Kong Le


 * 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) 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator.

Kong Le

 * ... that Captain Kong Le twice seized control of the Kingdom of Laos?
 * ALT1:. . .that while his troops were attacking communists, Captain Kong Le was serving as a monk?
 * Reviewed: Emin Xhinovci
 * Editorial Comment: When young idealistic Captain Kong Le seized power in Laos, he believed he could cleanse his national government of corruption and establish Laos as a neutral in the ongoing Cold War. His subsequent experiences bring to mind the old adage about the peacemaker to a dogfight being bitten by both sides. Forced by circumstances to surrender his third party position, and to take sides during the Laotian Civil War, he found that neither military expertise nor spiritual piety could sustain himself and his military/political movement in play.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Created by Georgejdorner (talk). Self nominated at 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg On 14 October prior to expansion, prose length was 4460 characters. On 18 February, after four days of improving and editing, the prose length was 14459 characters. In order to be 5x expanded, prose length should exceeded 22,3000 characters, which is 5x 4460. As it is, the article has only been expanded threefold, not fivefold. I'm pretty sure this means that it's not eligible for DYK, but want to make sure. —  ₳aron  17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Eligibility criteria 1D: "Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation or in the Draft namespace and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace." (Bolding added for clarity.)
 * It has been customary to treat these imported articles as new. Some other editors even insist they are "created" anew.
 * I admit this situation would be clearer if I had deleted all unsourced material from the older article before overwriting it. With cites for only the first and last paragraphs, there would have been only 173 characters in the original article.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Georgejdorner, I'm afraid you are misinterpreting 1d. This is for articles that did not previously exist. You can work on them for as long as you want in user space (or draft space), but the clock does not start ticking until they first exist in article space. In this case, Kong Le has existed in article space since 2003 without interruption; there is no way it can possibly be considered a new article. Instead, it has two hopes to qualify for DYK: as a 5x expansion, and as a Good Article. For 5x, WP:DYKSG is crystal clear: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. Absent copyvio, your choices are to expand the article to 22,300 prose characters (as Aaron notes) or to have it listed as a Good Article. As it stands now, it does not meet the DYK requirements, and articles in the past in the exact same situation as this one have been rejected. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I noted above, I have accepted others' interpretation of the rules because I have seen articles pass DYK under these circumstances. However, I have no desire to be seen as "gaming the system". Consider the nomination withdrawn.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that an article about Canadian rocker Ryan Peake can be nominated as a "new" article re above, but a nomination of a Laotian politician like Kong Le cannot.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)