- 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: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Damien Miller
edit.jpg)
- ... that Damien Miller (pictured) is the first Indigenous Australian to be an Australian ambassador?
- Reviewed: Guardian (polymer)
- Comment: Now on Sunday (6 July) NAIDOC Week starts in Australia. It is requested this perhaps could run on that day.
Created by 41.253.128.66 (talk). Nominated by Josve05a (talk) at 18:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC).
- If this passes, its should appear on (6 July) as Josve05a mentioned to coincide with the NAIDOC Week which is a celebratory week for people of Aborigine descent..article is short but well sourced.--Stemoc (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Article is deleted. --Gfosankar (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Gfosankar and Crisco 1492: Not any more. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know the extent that this would be relevant to the discussion, but it should be noted that this article was created by a banned editor in violation of their ban. Josve05a has accepted it, so the article stays, but personally I'm uncomfortable with accepting an article for DYK in these circumstances. - Bilby (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- As long as an independent editor has nominated it, I don't see the issue. Legoktm (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- It seems that being community banned allows you to edit, create articles, and have them showcased on DYK. I do start to wonder what the point of banning is. - Bilby (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- This seems to be getting of topic, and becoming a discussion about the point of banning users. This not the right venue to have this discussion. WP:DYK exists for one reason, to
[publicize] new or expanded articles after an informal review
. And I can't see anywhere in the rules of WP:DYK about if a "DYK-thing" (I couldn't think of another word. String?) should be allowed to be published depending on *who* wrote the article. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- This seems to be getting of topic, and becoming a discussion about the point of banning users. This not the right venue to have this discussion. WP:DYK exists for one reason, to
- It seems that being community banned allows you to edit, create articles, and have them showcased on DYK. I do start to wonder what the point of banning is. - Bilby (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- As long as an independent editor has nominated it, I don't see the issue. Legoktm (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Back to reviewing the article - everything appears to be fine with it, hook is referenced [6]. Long, new, neutral enough. No QPQ required, and image is suitable. That gets a pass
in my book. Note to promoter: schedule for July 6th. Rcsprinter123 (rap) @ 20:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
