Template:Did you know nominations/New York City Police Department Strategic Response Group
- 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 Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Article is not eligible as it has already appeared on DYK before.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
New York City Police Department Strategic Response Group
Strategic Response Group with riot batons at a protest near Trump Tower in 2016
- ... that in 2021 the New York Civil Liberties Union started a campaign to disband the Strategic Response Group, an NYPD unit created in 2015, for its frequent use of excessive force against protestors? Source: The Gothamist; New York Civil Liberties Union
- Reviewed:
- Comment: The article was a piece of puffery with only 6 sources, 3 of which were the NYPD, for years. On June 29th I expanded it over 5-fold to include 41 RS and give a full accounting of the organization's history and on the 30th polished it.
5x expanded by TheTranarchist (talk). Self-nominated at 17:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/New York City Police Department Strategic Response Group; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
This is ineligible for DYK because it has been featured as a bold link at DYK before, in February 2017. The eligibility criteria state that an "article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as a bold link at DYK". See {{Did you know nominations/Strategic Response Group}} and Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/February#24 February 2017. DanCherek (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @DanCherek: - sorry for the confusion and taking up your time, I'd thought that referred to unchanged articles (someone off-wiki recommended I take the article to DYK, and this was my first time nominating an article so I rushed it somewhat so as not to miss the 7 day deadline). Bit of a shame though, the previous version of the article was crap created by a now-blocked sock and the previous hook was at best completely uninteresting and at worst horribly misleading. C'est la vie I suppose. Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
- Yeah, my understanding is that the current rules preclude any article that has run at DYK before from being nominated again. There have been some recent discussions about putting an expiration date on this (i.e., can nominate again after X years) but nothing that has gained consensus to date. DanCherek (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
- @DanCherek: - sorry for the confusion and taking up your time, I'd thought that referred to unchanged articles (someone off-wiki recommended I take the article to DYK, and this was my first time nominating an article so I rushed it somewhat so as not to miss the 7 day deadline). Bit of a shame though, the previous version of the article was crap created by a now-blocked sock and the previous hook was at best completely uninteresting and at worst horribly misleading. C'est la vie I suppose. Best, TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)TheTranarchist
- It's worth noting that, per a recent discussion, there is an exception to the "we can't rerun articles on DYK" thing: if the previous version of the article that ran on DYK was a copyvio. Was this such a case? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)