- 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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paige Niemann
- ... that Ariana Grande-lookalike Paige Niemann has dressed up as the singer since age 12? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that Paige Niemann has posted photos and videos as Ariana Grande since age 12? Source: Same
- ALT2: ... that Ariana Grande-lookalike Paige Niemann has posted photos and videos dressed up as the singer since age 12? Source: Same
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Filli Vanilli
- Comment: Wow, it's really been a while!
Created by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 14:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paige Niemann; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- Reviewing... New enough, readable prose ~1,500 characters, QPQ done, hooks interesting. Will complete soon. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
... Hooks are in article followed by inline citations to the text. Thank you. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hold - the article is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Niemann Bruxton (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Back on track, the AfD finished as no consensus Bruxton (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK nomination is back on hold again as an editor has placed a notability template on the article after the AfD conclusion. I will keep watching for any changes. Bruxton (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I've removed the tag, we'll see if it sticks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- article has been sent back to AfD. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Back on track, the AfD finished as no consensus Bruxton (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
AFD has been closed as no consensus and so it is now eligible for a second look. Courtesy pings @Whispyhistory, Bruxton, and Theleekycauldron: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)- @Onel5969: I've removed the notability tag, it's not tangibly helpful for the article to have one. If it has survived two AfDs, even on "no consensus", there's no reason for editors to further check and recheck when no new information has come to light. In the meantime, for the readers who come across this article, they shouldn't be made to feel that the article is shaky in that respect. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I went to review this piece, but there are still major issues with the work. I'm inclined to say no to this. --evrik (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. It's dragged on for over two-months and the article can barely be considered "new". And I don't really have the energy to deal with the remaining issues. Sorry if I wasted anyone's time. Also, please, please, please, don't view this as a "ragequit". I promise it's not that. Or maybe it is. I honestly don't know lol. Whatever happens, just don't view it as a ragequit. Pamzeis (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)