Template:Did you know nominations/Assunta Legnante

The following is an archived discussion of Assunta Legnante's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC).
Age

Assunta Legnante

(

)

... that Assunta Legnante was gold medalist at the 2007 European Athletics Indoor Championships and at the 2012 Paralympic Games?

Reviewed: Gelindo Bordin

5x expanded by Kasper2006 (talk). Self nom at 19:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I expand this article 5x from 15 May 2012 to 18 September 2012 (see history). --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To be eligible for DYK, the article had to be expanded 5x within the last five days or so. - PM800 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This makes me realize that a good DYN in an article already good will never pass. If these are the rules should be revised, or at least with exceptions. In this specific case I had expand the article well over 5x, but I did it before the nomination. What has changed? --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

An exception might be made if you were just a few days late in nominating. In this case, the article expansion took place over several months, and even that was awhile ago. And furthermore, you are wrong in saying that you expanded it "well over 5x" because the prose has not been expanded 5x since you started editing it in May 2012. The purpose of DYK is to showcase articles with new content. Read the rules; this article currently does not qualify by any stretch of the imagination. - PM800 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree this does not comply with basic DYK rules. On 22 January it was 1064 characters, and is now 1537 characters of readable prose. It contained refs in January, so cannot even be considered an unsourced BLP expanded x2 - the recent expansion doesn't come up to that figure anyway. I think citing expansion undertaken from 11 May-22 September 2012 just cannot be described as 'new' in February 2013, when the article was nominated.

Sorry, this nomination just does not meet DYK criteria. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)