Template:Did you know nominations/Dash for Cash
- 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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dash for Cash
- ... that Dash for Cash, an event in which teachers competed to grab one-dollar bills to pay for school supplies, was criticized for being dehumanizing? Source: The Washington Post
- ALT0a: ... that Dash for Cash, an event in which teachers competed to grab one-dollar bills to pay for school supplies, was compared to Squid Game?
- ALT1: ... that Dash for Cash, intended as "a positive and fun experience for teachers," was described as dystopian, humiliating, and dehumanizing? Source: The Guardian
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lyduvėnai
- Comment: Feel free to suggest additional hooks.
Created by Elli (talk) and Ezlev (talk). Nominated by Elli (talk) at 21:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC).
Hi Elli, review follows; article created 13 December, is of sufficient length and well written; article cited inline throughout to reliable sources; I didn't find any issue with overly close paraphrasing; a QPQ has been carried out; hooks are interesting and mentioned in the article, one issue here though: the "awesome group thing to do" quote doesn't appear in the Guardian article. Could you check to make sure the right source is cited? - Dumelow (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Dumelow, the quote was in the article when I added that hook… It must have been edited. Since I can’t find an archived version, I’ve changed ALT1 to use the new statement in The Guardian in place of that one which it seems to have replaced. Better? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ezlev, that's fine but it also needs to be added to the Wikipedia article - Dumelow (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that! Done. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
All good - Dumelow (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Ezlev and Dumelow: this article details an incident that happened three days ago—could you walk me through how you prove persistent coverage this close to the date? This article doesn't need to be AfDed, of course, but without a concrete impact or the ability to show lasting coverage, how does this qualify for DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, WP:PERSISTENCE notes that an event having occurred recently
does not in itself make it non-notable
and thateditors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not.
Maybe this article could be AfDed at some point in the future if it's determined that coverage wasn't persistent, but as of right now there's no way of knowing, and it's not not notable. (And based on the number of new sources that weren't there when I was editing the article yesterday, my guess is that coverage will be persistent enough.) Maybe I'm misunderstanding, though – if the article doesn't need to be AfDed, as you say, then why wouldn't it qualify for DYK? Are there DYK-specific rules about impact or coverage? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC) - Also pinging Elli as article creator and nominator ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, my worry is that if we allow articles to run at DYK before persistence can be demonstrated, that DYK becomes host to articles that are really just one-off news events that receive a lot of coverage at just one point in time. And then those articles fail to show persistence, and then they get deleted, but they've already got their main page time. No prejudice against renomination, of course, but I'd say that an event article shouldn't be rushed to DYK unless 1. it can show persistent coverage, and not just the "not not notable" limbo, or 2. it's almost certainly going to spawn lasting coverage—I'm not sure this event will. Also, my apologies to Elli for the lack of ping—i thought ezlev had nominated the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: No worries about the ping and I appreciate your concern. I think this is likely to be notable as it's gotten very significant national attention, such as coverage in the New York Times ([1]) and will likely have future impacts (per this article:
The organizers also promised to work with South Dakota's educators organization on future events that will support teachers and "funding for our next generation."
). I think it's likely that this will be brought up in future discussions of teacher pay. Maybe not the clearest notability, but I thought it was reasonable. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)- I tend to give such articles a little leeway as it takes time for persistence to be demonstrated. In this case the subject has received reasonable coverage in the British press (Eg. the Metro, Daily Mail - RS status notwithstanding - and a significant piece in the Guardian) which gives me more confidence than if it had been featured only in local newspapers - Dumelow (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- okay—i trust your judgement, both of you :) good to go again theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I tend to give such articles a little leeway as it takes time for persistence to be demonstrated. In this case the subject has received reasonable coverage in the British press (Eg. the Metro, Daily Mail - RS status notwithstanding - and a significant piece in the Guardian) which gives me more confidence than if it had been featured only in local newspapers - Dumelow (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: No worries about the ping and I appreciate your concern. I think this is likely to be notable as it's gotten very significant national attention, such as coverage in the New York Times ([1]) and will likely have future impacts (per this article:
- Well, my worry is that if we allow articles to run at DYK before persistence can be demonstrated, that DYK becomes host to articles that are really just one-off news events that receive a lot of coverage at just one point in time. And then those articles fail to show persistence, and then they get deleted, but they've already got their main page time. No prejudice against renomination, of course, but I'd say that an event article shouldn't be rushed to DYK unless 1. it can show persistent coverage, and not just the "not not notable" limbo, or 2. it's almost certainly going to spawn lasting coverage—I'm not sure this event will. Also, my apologies to Elli for the lack of ping—i thought ezlev had nominated the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, WP:PERSISTENCE notes that an event having occurred recently
- @Ezlev and Dumelow: this article details an incident that happened three days ago—could you walk me through how you prove persistent coverage this close to the date? This article doesn't need to be AfDed, of course, but without a concrete impact or the ability to show lasting coverage, how does this qualify for DYK? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that! Done. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ezlev, that's fine but it also needs to be added to the Wikipedia article - Dumelow (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
