Template:Did you know nominations/Pig fallopian tubes
- The following discussion 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 SL93 (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Issues about length have not been addressed after a significant amount of time.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Pig fallopian tubes
[edit]- ... that Singaporeans eat pig fallopian tubes?
Created by Bonkers The Clown (talk). Self nominated at 11:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC).
- The hook is a little blunt. Suggested alt:
- ... that consumption of pig fallopian tubes, a Singaporean dish, is said to aid fertility? Gatoclass (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- ALT could do, but not very often do you see someone eating the Fallopian tubes of a pig... So most probably the original hook would do. Let the promoter decide then. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
All criteria met, my pick goes to ALT. As mentioned, it is a rare dish in Singapore. In fact, I have never even heard of it. As such, it would not be too good to use the original, which makes it sound common in Singapore. Arctic Kangaroo (✉ • ✎) 16:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
What BlueMoonset stated in Template:Did you know nominations/Duck's head applies here as well – the "article reads like a stub, with too little information," and even at 1580 characters, "it's too short and with insufficient information to qualify." —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- What (s)he said there does not mean that it applies here too. This is a DYK nomination; has any of the DYK rules been broken? (The answer: no) Considering that this is a subject of relatively little to no importance, and that sources are scarce, it can be argued that coverage is met, and that there is sufficient information. I don't see why this should not pass. I rest my case, and I wish for you to keep yours too. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- You don't get to determine whether any DYK rules have been broken for your own articles. Please see DYKAR D7 on how "an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress," as well as how "[a]rticles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected." —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
More than half of the lede is repeated in the last paragraph without much elaboration. If the repetition is removed, this short article will be under the 1500-character minimum. --PFHLai (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
This was, I believe, the point: this is a stub of an article, with insufficient reliable, encyclopedic (non-anecdotal) information, and a great deal of duplication. Nothing has been added to it in the past month, despite clear indication that it was not considered adequate for DYK. Closing nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
