- 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 Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 10:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Stanak edit
- ... that the Bosnian ruler's wife could attend the sessions of the Stanak, which elected kings and queens and deliberated on state matters, while his sons and the Bosnian Church clergy could not?
- Reviewed: Andrew III of Hungary
Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 13:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
Regrettably this article does not seem to be eligible according to DYK rules. The nominator should be commended for vastly improving the article, especially sourcing, but the old version was quite long and the article has not been expanded 5x. -Zanhe (talk) 23:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- The old version had been nominated for merger for a year. It was very poorly written so I merged it. Two weeks later I decided to recreate it, this time with proper sourcing. I admit it's a bit muddy, but was it not technically "new"? Have there previously been cases of deleted/merged articles being recreated and nominated? Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#A4, "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion." The article had 1087 characters of readable prose on April 22, 2014. The article currently has 1978 characters of readable prose. This is not even a full 2x expansion and is well short of the needed 5x. --Allen3 talk 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- The old version had been nominated for merger for a year. It was very poorly written so I merged it. Two weeks later I decided to recreate it, this time with proper sourcing. I admit it's a bit muddy, but was it not technically "new"? Have there previously been cases of deleted/merged articles being recreated and nominated? Surtsicna (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
