Template:Did you know nominations/Abdullah Pasha al-Azm
The following is an archived discussion of Abdullah Pasha al-Azm's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Abdullah Pasha al-Azm
edit- ... that Abdullah Pasha al-Azm was the last member of the prominent al-Azm family to serve as the governor of Damascus Province during Ottoman rule?
Created by Al Ameer son (talk). Self nominated at 07:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC).
While the article checks good for size, hook and references, it was created on 17 Feb but was nominated only six days later (23 Feb). —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes I know, I had planned to nominate it much earlier but it just slipped my mind until a little after the last minute. I honestly though that we had six days to nominate since if you look at the main page, the New nominations section covers the first six days since an article was created and not five as in the past. If I'm wrong, then I only request that you accept the nomination anyway because it was posted only a few hours after the fifth day. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert in this regard. Requesting some experienced volunteer to look into this issue. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- The requirement is five days after the creation/expansion date. There appear to be six days on those charts, but they include the day of creation, so for a Feb 17 creation (or start of expansion), there are five more days in which to nominate it (18, 19, 20, 21, and 22). I've gotten the impression that at one time it may have been exactly five days to the minute, but I've never seen that enforced, so long as the nomination is made before midnight five days later. It's up to the reviewer to decide whether to allow extra time in the event of an error, or to hold strictly by the rules. I've seen it go both ways. Vensatry is correct that this was nominated a day after it should have been. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, the six days on the current nominations chart confused me a bit. I guess I'll await Vensatry's decision. To that effect, I hope he accepts the nomination because I think the article is one of the more interesting ones that I've nominated and if I remember correctly it was only a few hours after the 5-day deadline (need to double check that though.) --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The article was originally created on 17 February 2013, 11:22 (IST), and nominated on 23 February 2013, 13:03 (IST). It's just over six days. The nominator claims it's one of the most interesting article, and also it satisfies all the requirements for DYK except the date and QPQ, I have no issues. So it's upto the delegates to decide upon. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- In cases like these we can be lenient per Wikipedia:Did you know/Not exactly and IAR. IMO, 6 days is no problem. Hook ref AGF. All that's needed is a QPQ and it'll be good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for accepting the nomination. I just added QPQ review. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- You might want to take a quick look at that QPQ review, and finish it off. One thing wasn't quite right. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for that reminder, I addressed the issue. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
GTG. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)