Template:Did you know nominations/Remember The 13th

Withdrawn by nominator.

Remember the 13th

 * ... that Remember the 13th was considered one of the biggest hoaxes of 2013?
 * Comment: Found in AfC queue
 * Comment: Found in AfC queue

Created/expanded by Rogerroyal (talk). Nominated by Gigs (talk) at 17:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I have given the article a good copyedit which cut its length some, but it is still plenty long enough. However, there are numerous unreferenced statements like "some people..." or "many reporters..."  These should be corrected to say "[Source X] and [Source Y] ..." like I did with the statement that now reads "Slate called Remember the 13th "a silly viral Marketing scheme"".  Otherwise, the statement are opinions passed off as fact. I have tagged the sentences needing attention. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have just pinged the nominator's talk page. We should probably give this another week for the above issues to be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I cleaned it up a little. Sorry for the delay. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is currently some growing concern that Swenzy is using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. It may be best to abandon this DYK. Gigs (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Gigs, if you wish to withdraw your nomination, we'll be happy to close it. Is that what you want to do? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If possible, I would like a neutral third party (could be you) to consider Articles_for_deletion/Swenzy and Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_70 and decide whether this nomination should be withdrawn or whether it should go forward. When I made the nomination I was not aware of the promotional editing involved.  The hook article hasn't been nominated for deletion, at least.  I am OK with either outcome. Gigs (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

For me, this article is reminiscent of the various articles about fraudulent/fake universities and diploma-mill scams that I've contributed to. The topics are important and they are sometimes -- but not always -- notable by Wikipedia standards, but in most cases (even with reliable sources) some of the most basic facts are unavailable. Except possibly in the rare case where there is a well-documented fraud conviction of a diploma-mill operator, I'd be reluctant to take a diploma-mill article to DYK because of the uncertainty that typically surrounds the subject of the article. I may be wrong, but I think I sense something similar here. --Orlady (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, consider it withdrawn. Gigs (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)