- The following discussion 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) 06:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
5x expansion is over four weeks old; this is not eligible even under WP:DYKSG#D9.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Olivia Pope
edit- ... that fictional character Olivia Pope, who is the mistress of the fictional President of the United States, is described as having "the messiest personal life of any character in prime time"?
- Comment: This article was created October 18, 2013 and expanded November 9, 2013. Given that there are still September hooks on the board and we are talking about going to 12 hour runs due to a shortage of hooks, I am appealing under the rule that belated nominations are O.K. in a shortage as long as the relevant date is still in play. Note that since the 8th through 10th have been cleared, I am not sure whether to file this under the 7th or 11th, but since we are in a shortage and dates after September 29 are still in play, I assume I can put it in one or the other or have November 9 reopened.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
5x expanded by TonyTheTiger (talk). Self nominated at 04:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC).
- Reviewing: 1st of 3 QPQs for Template:Did you know nominations/Li surnames.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Tony, this is over four weeks old, well beyond the point that it might be eligible for an exception. We have 178 nominated hooks, so there is no shortage of available material; the problem is the lack of approved hooks. Worse, this is an article with a citations tag, with nothing to support the fictional biography—it's only plot sections that get a pass in articles like this—and the article still has major holes in it, including a completely blank second season section. The article's sole chance to qualify for DYK is to be listed as a GA, at which point it can be nominated again. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- IIRC, the exception rule was that if its appropriate date (November 9 or 10) is newer than the oldest date in play (September 29), it is not beyond the exception point. When did this change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of approved hooks and state of this article. Give me 48 hours. I have been procrastinating on this one. I sort of disagree with the organization however. Give me a while to pull up some sources and see what I can do. I should be able to make this approvable pretty quickly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tony, I'm not going to argue this. I have made my decision, it is reasonable, and I am closing the nomination. You are welcome to appeal at WT:DYK, but 178 nominations is a large number, and four weeks is excessive. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)