Template:Did you know nominations/St Marys Church, Clophill

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Length

St Marys Church, Clophill

(

)

... that the graveyard of St Marys Church (pictured) in Clophill was popular among body snatchers?

Comment: I'm instituting ignore all rules for this nomination. The article was greatly improved by Uncle G and Drmies from this version. In it's improved form, the article is new to readers, even if it doesn't meet any specific DYK requirements. Normal DYK discussion should probably take place here, while discussion on whether this can be put on the main page per IAR should take place at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#IADYKR: Ignore All DYK Rules

Created/expanded by Uncle G (talk), Drmies (talk). Nominated by Ryan Vesey (talk) at 04:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan--I'll review something soon. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1950s' American automobile culture, easiest one ever. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll happily verify the article and the hook as both interesting and well-referenced.
Nevertheless, (and yes, I do realize that this request is specifically under IAR), there is a very long standing tradition (actually a guideline) that says, "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it was up for deletion. This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article."
The guideline was written in so much detail for cases exactly like this one. I think IAR in this case would have a terribly adverse effect (not only because it's unfair to all the other articles that have been rejected under this--see this one for one such example). Said effect can already be observed by the requests on the talk page. DYK simply doesn't have the resources or the dedicated individuals required for this kind of change at the moment.
I regretfully feel that I have to reject this nomination, but I will voice no objection if a more experience DYK editor overrules my assessment. Yazan (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't count. ;) I'm still waiting and hoping. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)