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
BorgQueen (
talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@
Roastedbeanz1: On the other hand, while the thought counts, I regret to inform you (and correct myself in hindsight) that this is unfortunately ineligible for DYK. Article was created back in mid-November 2007, and to satisfy DYK requirements at this writing, should have been either a recent
GA or expanded fivefold to ~87.5KB in the past few days alone. Pardon if I was rather optimistic beforehand, but I'm afraid a decline is in order for the time being. (There's a reason I recently added {{User oops}} among the several dozen UBXes already on my userpage.) Once/if this passes
WP:GAN, I'll happily reconsider. Best of luck—I might keep an eye out!For starters, you might try sending this over to
PR to find out what needs to be done first. --
Slgrandson (
How's myegg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)