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 Bruxton (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Overall: New enough, appears long enough (although it is rather short), neutral and is sourced. Hook is cited and is interesting. I've seen SBNation used hundreds if not thousands of times (and have used it a number of times myself) so I believe it is a good enough source to count as "reliable." No QPQ needed, as this would be the nominator's third credit. Appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I hesitated on this nomination because it seems like a borderline case of notability. But onward we go! Bruxton (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
New enough, appears long enough (although it is rather short), neutral and is sourced. Hook is cited and is interesting. I've seen SBNation used hundreds if not thousands of times (and have used it a number of times myself) so I believe it is a good enough source to count as "reliable." No QPQ needed, as this would be the nominator's third credit. Appears good to go! BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)