Template:Did you know nominations/Epstein didn't kill himself

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 Yoninah (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Epstein didn't kill himself

(

)

... that Christmas jumpers featuring the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" are available for sale? Source: Special:Permalink/928083229#cite_note-Slate-18

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/bongos eat burnt wood
Comment: I believe it contains enough text that the Background section (which is from Death of Jeffrey Epstein) can be disregarded and the article still considered new enough.

Created by MJL (talk). Self-nominated at 18:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC).

@MJL: Hi, I'll review this. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - Do you have another more interesting hook? I feel like this is a little boring without context, kind of like the OK Boomer meme. How about this?
- ALT1 ... that people have randomly interjected the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" at the end of statements? Source: Special:Permalink/928104363#cite_note-5
- ALT2 ... that the phrase "Epstein didn't kill himself" has been used by individuals on all sides of the political spectrum without agreement as to the specific details? Source: Special:Permalink/928104363#cite_note-7

QPQ: Done.

Overall: There are a few sources that may be seen as biased (in either direction), like Daily Dot and National Review. And to a smaller extent Slate, Fox, & the Intelligencer can also be seen as biased. However, the articles themselves are neutral, so I'll give the sourcing a pass. epicgenius (talk) 05:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Oh my gosh.. I absolutely love ALT1!!! That would be the the perfect hook to for the quirky one at the end of a set. I guess that's why you're named epicgenuis. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice. ALT1 is good to go, I personally find this the most interesting as well. Thanks for the quick response.
However, the {{merge}} tag still needs to be removed before promotion. I see slightly more opposes than supports at that page, but still. epicgenius (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Awesome, thank you! Hopefully, the merge discussion will be over sooner than later. (edit conflict × 2) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: As it happens, you are not allowed to approve a hook you wrote yourself. (I learned that the hard way once.) This would probably have gotten bounced by the higher-ups in the process. So I will approve it:
Good to go with ALT1. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks. I just recently learned that I can't approve my own hooks as well, though not in as drastic a manner as you likely did. epicgenius (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: per Rule A5, copied text from an article that is more than 7 days old must be expanded, character-count-wise, in the new article. How many characters of text did you copy from Death of Jeffrey Epstein? Additionally, Template:Copied must be added to the talk pages of both articles. Yoninah (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Just the background section (which was partly re-written and added to). Everything else in the article is new content. I can giv you a full character count when I get home (as well apply {{Copied}}). Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah and MJL: Character count of the prose in the entire article is 7,300 bytes. Conservatively (including ref brackets and other markup), copied prose is about 1,280 bytes. So this does represent a 5x expansion. epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

This nomination is on hold until the merge proposal for this article has been closed one way or the other. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It's been closed now! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

As there has been a major expansion since the first approval, including entirely new sections, I think it's important that a re-review is done now that there was no consensus for the proposed merge, since the new material should be vetted for all the usual things (neutrality, sourcing, copyvio, etc.). epicgenius, did you want to do that, or should we find a new reviewer? My assumption is that MelanieN's approval of your ALT1 would still stand if the rest of the article still passes, though she may wish to reconfirm. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will review this again. It is still new enough as the 7,500 bytes of this article is a five-fold expansion of the copied text. Sourcing is adequate, and there are no non-neutral parts of the article. Most of the copyvio pickups seem to be quotes. The hook is still OK. epicgenius (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)