Template:Did you know nominations/Sahara Sue


 * 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Age

Sahara Sue

 * ... that Sahara Sue wore dentures at the age of fifteen to twenty-five?

5x expanded by Gourami Watcher (talk). Self nominated at 18:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC).


 * This is the second article recently re an unidentified body with a reconstructed face and (no kidding) I wouldn't mind seeing these hooks run with photos. Who knows -- we might solve a case that way! EEng (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the infobox photo was added as a non-free image (unless someone could send a convincing OTRS request to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children). The other photo on the article (in my opinion) doesn't quite give an accurate depiction of her in life, but gives a decent example of her clothing.
 * You'd think such an organization would want images like this spread far and wide, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did approve such a request. (Perhaps they're worried about tasteless misuse or something.) BTW, on the img description page you use the word copywritten -- the word you're looking for there is copyrighted. EEng (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I sent them a message over the Facebook page] for unidentified children a while back and they sent "the NCMEC reconstructions are created for official dissemination by NCMEC and the investigators working the cases." Unless someone is able to convince them who is a lot better with arguing than I am, I'm not sure how things'll go. -- Gourami Watcher pride  00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I can see that. They want the way the image is used to be under the control of the investigators involved in the particular case -- you can see that logic of that -- so we'd probably have to contact them. Too much trouble, sorry to say. EEng (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is email information at the coroner's office available, if we could give it a try. -- Gourami Watcher pride  16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone else will have to do this -- too big an undertaking for me. EEng (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a whirl and see what the coroner says. If it works, I'll let everyone know. -- Gourami Watcher pride  17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck. They'll need to understand that, if the image is going to be used on the main page, they will have to release it under an appropriate free license. EEng (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Is there an exception to this nomination? The former redirect became an article on 7 October 2014. In other words, it is a month old. You can re-nominate it when it becomes a Good Article. However, I wonder if anyone else disagrees with me. --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I really wish we would dump this stupid 7-day rule. We run boring crap hooks/articles simply because they got nominated by some meaningless deadline, and refuse to run interesting stuff just because it wasn't. EEng (talk) 14:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Boring is not dependent on time-scale. I don't care to see DYK flooded with completely random articles that took 2+ years to hit 1500 chars or expand fivefold, but if you want you could suggest it over at WT:DYK. Someone please close this as stale, expansion started on 7 October so deadline was 14 October - 26 days late. Fuebaey (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest that boringness and time-scale were in any way related. I said that time is used at the metric instead of interest-merit. I would be happy to see DYK opened (not "flooded") with well-considered (not "completely random") articles accompanied by truly interesting hooks (as decided by -- not consensus -- but rather straight-out Darwinian voting) -- regardless of when the article was created or expanded. EEng (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)