Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Nixon Foundation

Richard Nixon Foundation
Created/expanded by Happyme22 (talk). Self nom at 04:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ... that the Richard Nixon Foundation controlled and operated the Nixon Library (pictured) for 17 years and now operates the Library jointly with the U.S. National Archives?


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Too old. The article was created almost 20 days ago, but the nomination was not made until today. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The nomination subpage was made on the day of creation, but the nominator appears to be unfamiliar with the new procedure and failed to add the subpage to T:TDYK, which is why I did so today. I believe we should AGF the effort of the nominator in light of the timely creation of the subpage.  OCNative (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Creating the subpage is only part of the nomination process; the rest of the instructions are clear. The fact that the nominator failed to read them doesn't change the fact that the article is 20 days old. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be gentle with DYK contributors who experience difficulty with the new process here. Not everyone who contributes to Wikipedia is a professional coder. As one of those contributors who isn't, I will testify that even the clearest instructions about creating and transcluding templates can be difficult to understand and follow. I say that we should treat this nomination as if it had been submitted "on time." --Orlady (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a professional coder either, and no one needs to be a professional coder to follow the instructions (which are extremely simple and very explicit). When these errors in nomination come up, it is almost certainly not because the instructions were too complicated but because the nominator simply didn't bother to read them. Anyway, regardless of who the nominator is, that doesn't change the fact that this article is not a new or recently expanded article. If you think the DYK requirements regarding article newness should be changed, it would be more appropriate to discuss that matter at WT:DYK. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting changing the rules. The suggestion is to apply the rules in a fair and common-sense way rather than bureaucratically and mechanically.  I too support allowing this nomination.  Spinning  Spark  00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too - note a near identical case at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Harvester (H19) above. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too - especially as we now routinely publish "new" articles four weeks after they were nominated. We cannot defend denying this person access. Sorry that we need to debate this. However the article does paint a very rosy picture based largely on its own PR. I have added some balance to the article and a better? hook is below Victuallers (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm seconding Victuallers, here. My own recent DYK nomination was made over a week ago and hasn't seen any attention. This was true of my last DYK nomination, too. Among DYKs "new" tends to be a relative term. If the nominator made a mistake in the process of listing the page that's not a big deal. The fact that many Wikipedia processess, policies, and guidelines are confusing is a flaw with Wikipedia and not with our userbase. Our users shouldn't be punished for Wikipedia's systemic flaws. Abyssal (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (alt) ... that the Richard Nixon Foundation was accused of creating "whitewashed" exhibits in the Nixon Library (pictured) before the U.S. National Archives took control?
 * I like this alternate hook better than the nominator's. Abyssal (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a rule against negative hooks?  Spinning Spark  00:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That "rule" applies primarily to hooks about living persons. Corporations are "persons" under U.S. law, but I don't believe that Wikipedia BLP protection rules apply to them. --Orlady (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I think the ALT hook might be a bit too negative. Maybe we can find a middle ground:
 * ALT2: ... that after relinquishing control of the Nixon Library (pictured) to the U.S. National Archives, the Richard Nixon Foundation objected to plans for an exhibit on the Watergate scandal? --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a bit COI as I improved this a lot but Symbol confirmed.svg for Alt2, NOT original hook Victuallers (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)