- 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) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the X given, the prose is sufficiently problematic that it would be inappropriate to feature this on the main page
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Astrodatabank
edit- ... that Astrodatabank has a birth data Rodden rating system for entries, with necessary source notes?
- Reviewed: Dick Cresswell
Created by Junosoon (talk). Self-nominated at 04:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC).
- My review below.
- Article (New):
Nominated more the 7 days after created, and has not been expanded 5 times after that time - Article (Long enough):
- Article (Within policy):
I checked many sources, and it's a mixture of trivial mentions, user comments, or other questionable sources. I'm not convinced that this site is notable because of the source puffery. - Hook (Format):
- Hook (Content):
- QPQ:
- Images: One image; Wikipedia Commons.
- Article (New):
Overall: 
Article is sadly ineligible as it was nominated over 7 days after it was created. Even then, I am doubtful as to the subject's notability.--Coin945 (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Coin945, the article counts as new as of the date it was moved from Draft space to mainspace, September 7, so it was clearly new as of the date it was nominated, September 10. Please revisit your review since this was your primary basis for failing it, though it's clear there are other issues. Also, when you do your DYK reviews, please only use a single icon to summarize your final conclusion; the icons are not supposed to be used for individual criteria. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ahh gotcha. I was going by the first revision in the revision history, but you're right. The article was in draftspace until September 7th! I'll revise my review below. (That's a shame. I think using the icons for individual criteria is very handy. I'll try to avoid it in the future).
- Article (New): Moved to Mainspace on September 7th. Fine.
- Article (Long enough):
- Article (Within policy): I checked many sources, and it's a mixture of trivial mentions, user comments, or other questionable sources. I'm not convinced that this site is notable because of the source puffery.
- Hook (Format):
- Hook (Content):
- QPQ:
- Images: One image; Wikipedia Commons.
- Article (New):
Overall: 
. I am not wholly convinced on this subject's notability. I would like the nominator to make a statement about this before I accept the article in good faith. As mentioned, many of the sources in the article are unsatisfactory in proving the topic's notability. Oh, and please complete a QPQ. :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for review, regarding sources , as you pointed, all the references, are made , so that text of article can be verified, so please note it not just the mention of title in sources or referencing, but they refer the importance and significance of subject.Please view, the revision history of article when it was accepted on September 7th.Junosoon (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment QPQ is done, Reviewed, Dick Cresswell. Junosoon (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry @Junosoon:, in good faith after reading your statement, I went back and individually assessed every source in the article and I have to say, many of them don't even contain the word "Astrodatabank" which is troubling to me. I don't think this should pass DYK, and to be honest I think it should be sent to WP:AFD.--Coin945 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- article is not supported by extensive coverage in reliable third-party sources. Should be taken to WP:AFD.--Coin945 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- Many, if not most, of the 67 or so citations are not relevant to the statements in the content or not from reliable sources or duplications. I have been working through them. I believe that notability can be established from reliable third-party sources such as Fox News, CNN, Dr James Lewis, Mountain Astrologer, BeliefNet, Llewellyn Worldwide, Berghahn Books and others. The problem is sifting the wheat from the chaff. Fg63~enwiki (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)