- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
without an adopter, there's no reason to continue this one
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Carowinds
- ... that Carowinds amusement park in Charlotte, North Carolina, was the first amusement park to sell Dippin' Dots ice cream? Source: Dippin' Dots ice cream page
Converted from a redirect by InternetScavenger89 (talk). Self-nominated at 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC).
Nominator has been blocked indefinitely, and in fact has not made a single edit to the nominated article (which isn't a problem per se, but in this case the nominator claimed to have converted the article from a redirect, which is demonstrably false). Additionally, Earwig's tool turned out a whopping 90.5% similarity with https://en.advisor.travel/poi/Carowinds-16188, although I don't know whether that site copied from Wikipedia or vice-versa. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 04:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: That website has the following notice:
All textual information is provided under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike. The licenses for media files are to be specified in each case separately.
Even if the Wikipedia article copied from that page, it is not a violation since CC-BY-SA is compatible with Wikipedia, and attribution could be provided on the page. However, I am pretty sure it was the other way around. (Incidentally, this is a longstanding article that has been around since at least 2007, so deletion should not have been requested. I will request a refund shortly.) Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Aye, and I am deeply embarrassed to admit that I didn't realize that about the page's licensing until after the article had already been deleted. I didn't request deletion, though; in fact, I was one of the first to rebuke the deleting admin on his talk page. Even right away I wanted to leave wiggle room for the prospect that the site in question had copied from Wikipedia; deletion hadn't even occurred yet by the time a gut feeling had sunk in that such was the case. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 02:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Dylan620, no worries. I don't blame you for the deletion, just thought it was strange that it was deleted so drastically. Your reason for rejecting the article is most likely correct though; as a page watcher, I don't recall this being improved to GA or 5x expanded recently. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Epicgenius: Indeed it hadn't; I ran a DYKcheck on the article shortly before my review, which confirmed that 5x expansion had not occurred. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 02:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: That website has the following notice:
