- 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 Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Fukuppy
- Reviewed: This is the last of my five "free" DYK submissions.
- Comment: The {{orphan}} tag should hide automatically on 1 December 2020; I haven't been able to think of any link-in which wouldn't be an unjustified shoehorn. (UPDATE - now de-orphaned. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC))
Created by Narky Blert (talk). Self-nominated at 18:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC).
- This was a very interesting read
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
Hook is very catchy. New enough: Created 22 November nominated 289 November. Long enough: 2004 readable prose characters. Hook cited: Hook is and referenced in the article. Neutral: no problem here. Inline citations: Very well referenced. Copyvio: Earwig's tool used, no copyvio detected however violation probability is affected by a verbatim quote. QPQ: not required. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this is a cute hook, but we don't put names on the main page that don't have a Wikipedia link. Could you write a stub for the company? Yoninah (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I don't think I could get them through WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The references in the Japanese article ({{ill}}-linked in para 2) are thin, and I'd guess the history (which goes back to 1951) was taken from the company's website. A search on the Japanese name フクシマガリレイ turned up a fair amount of financial stuff; a search on the English name mainly turned up this incident. I get the impression of a major player well-known in the trade, but not a household name; not surprising considering the business they're in. This self-description looks fair, but is WP:SELFPUB. A stub based around Fukuppy would be WP:UNDUE, and unfair.
- I'd be happy to omit the company name from the hook. The link I just posted says that they can "respond to unlikely events immediately". I couldn't say this in the article, because none of the sources does - but their response to this potential PR disaster strikes me as having shown just that, and been exemplary. It must have been hugely embarrassing (and I imagine their branding consultants got a bollocking).
- How about ALT-1,
... that a Japanese refrigeration manufacturer launched its corporate mascot under the name Fukuppy?
- Or ALT-2,
... that a major Japanese refrigeration manufacturer launched its corporate mascot under the name Fukuppy? (The Guardian 2013 citation says "major". I left it out of the article to avoid unwelcome attention in User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Bad/log (which records possible WP:PUFFERY), but it could always be added.) Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Narky Blert: I'm not talking about a whole article, just a one-line stub to get that blue link on the front page. I think ALT0 makes more sense than the other hooks. Yoninah (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
-
OK. So we need a review of ALT1 or ALT2, both to verify the hook facts and to give an opinion on hook interest. Pinging original reviewer @Elie plus: Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Thank you for pointing this out; I didn't know about this rule. I agree that a stub for the company would do the job; I believe that the notoriety of the mascot incident alone is enough to save it from deletion. I'd also stick with Alt0. @Narky Blert: please ping me when you make a decision. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 12:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Elie plus: For some reason, your ping never arrived. I'll write a stub (without REFBOMBing...) and post here once it's up. Narky Blert (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
-
- Yes, it does. Thanks for the blue link. Restoring tick for ALT0 per Elie plus's review. Yoninah (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hook is very catchy. New enough: Created 22 November nominated 289 November. Long enough: 2004 readable prose characters. Hook cited: Hook is and referenced in the article. Neutral: no problem here. Inline citations: Very well referenced. Copyvio: Earwig's tool used, no copyvio detected however violation probability is affected by a verbatim quote. QPQ: not required. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
