Template:Did you know nominations/Karen Greenlee

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 Jolly Ω Janner 08:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Karen Greenlee[edit]

(

)

... that despite admitting to necrophilia, Karen Greenlee only spent 11 days in jail for theft of a hearse and delaying a funeral?

Comment: No QPQ necessary (4th nom). I've spoken with Jim Carter already who expressed interest in reviewing this nom. I'd like to find a way to work in there that the reason it's a fact is because necrophilia wasn't illegal in California in 1979, but I can't find a way to phrase it that both avoids repetition AND is under 200 characters; I'm very open to suggestions! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Created by Salvidrim! (talk). Self-nominated at 03:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

Article is new enough (Was started on February 24) it is long enough (2310 characters), respects our core policies; no copyvio detected, article is well sourced with inline references. Subject passes WP:CRIMINAL and is not written unduly. Hook is really interesting, I think "because necrophilia was not illegal" this sentence is not necessary here as it has already been mentioned in the article, given the hook is so interesting that readers would click on the link to read the rest of the article to know more. This is the reason why we bold the link of the DYK article. Hook is cited. QPQ not necessary. GTG. Jim Carter 11:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: this seems to fail WP:BLP1E. Yoninah (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Now at AFD. Yoninah (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, keep the DYK nom on hold until the AfD is closed. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD closed as keep. No new review required. sst✈ 05:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The article has been expanded during the AFD discussion. A reviewer is needed to check the new references for close paraphrasing. Yoninah (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyvios confidence 6.5%. Rest of review per Jim Carter. sst✈ 16:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

And even that 6.5% is strictly because the referenced article's title copied in the title= field of the {{citeweb}} :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)