Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya

Natalia Poklonskaya

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Prosecutor of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, became an Internet phenomenon worldwide and spawned an onslaught of moe-style fan art (example pictured) dedicated to her?

• ALT1:... that the Prosecutor of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, became an Internet phenomenon worldwide and spawned an onslaught of anime-style fan art (example pictured) dedicated to her?
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Broderick.
• Comment: Discussions about alternatives and pictures are welcome

Created/expanded by Moscow Connection (talk), Dainomite (talk), Aldnonymous (talk), Starship.paint (talk), Tktru (talk), Benlisquare (talk), Adelgado1313 (talk), RonaldDuncan (talk), Ging287 (talk). Nominated by Moscow Connection (talk) at 20:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC).

• Comment - regarding content: 1) Definitely don't link to Internet meme. Link to List of Internet phenomena. 2) I don't like "sensation" either, perhaps a rephrase is needed. 3) It's sourced that it's not only in Japan, but also China. I'm looking for a source that says "worldwide". starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've made a few amendments. "Japan" will do for now, unless you can find another source for it. Currently the sources we have say Japan. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• There are sources for China I previously added. See references 13 abd 15, IBT and Guangming Online. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you can't find a ref, we could just make the hook say "became an Internet phenomenon in Japan and China". We will need to make do with what is available. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• That's fine. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the amendments! --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Eh, since you thanked me for the amendments, I am going to make the China amendment as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "China" makes it longer and harder to read. Also, look at the views. She's not that viral in China. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Views? What do you mean? --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

English (59,514 on 24th), Russian (just look, 72,998 yesterday), Japanese (10,459 on 25th), Chinese (1,662 yesterday), Spanish (7,473 on 25th). --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Chinese Wikipedia, Chinese people don't use it, only Taiwanese and Hongkongers do. Wikipedia was blocked by the Chinese government for many years, and Chinese people don't use Wikipedia nowadays, the large majority use Baidu Baike. It's also a nationalism thing, think of how Russians use Vkontakte instead of Facebook - it's a national pride thing in China to prefer domestic sites over foreign ones, hence why Tudou and Youku have more Chinese users than YouTube.

Natalia is trending on Chinese social networks such as Tencent QQ and Sina Weibo, and plenty of the art on Pixiv is created by Chinese artists (I've had to communicate in Chinese for many of my OTRS attempts). --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, you can play the page view card, but I can play the reference 13, 14 and 15 card? But anyway, how about my new comment at the bottom of the DYK. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Benlisquare, okay. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If the WP:OTRS for File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade.jpg (which I personally prefer) doesn't get sorted out by the time the DYK reaches the prep area, we could use File:Natalia Poklonskaya by ASLE.jpg instead - this image has already had its OTRS ticket fully processed and passed successfully. As of writing, the other images are also still awaiting OTRS approval. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• As of 2014-03-25 20:09 (UTC+11), the following images have officially been OTRS verified: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• OTRS of the nominated image to accompany DYK hook has finally been OTRS approved. Hence, all I have written here can be safely ignored. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Let's maybe upload a different version of it, a version cropped to a square. (A special version to use for the DYK, under a different file name, cause now it is too small as a thumbnail.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• OK. There's plenty of whitespace that can be removed from the sides. --benlisquare_T•C•E 21:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Could you do it? :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade (cropped for DYK).jpg, sorry for taking forever. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! (That was clever, I would never guessed to upload it like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe "moe fan art" instead of "moe-style fan art"? (Easier to read.)
  By the way, can someone maybe come up with a crazy play on words for the hook? The crazier it is, the more views the article will get. The current one is okay (the words "Prosecutor of Crimea" and "Internet phenomenon" draw attention), but still a bit boring. Now we only have one version, we should come up with something completely different to choose from. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Putting into use of this citation, how does this sound?

  ALT 2: ... that the Prosecutor of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, relies on her daughter to keep track of anime-style fan art of her (example pictured) on the internet?

  ...or something along those lines. "Anime" and "moe" can be interchangable, I picked anime in this case because our article on moe isn't really that great or easy for readers to understand. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like ALT2... I think the current one is better cause "internet phenomenon" looks much more interesting. And she doesn't say in the source what ALT2 says. She actually says that she personally doesn't have time to care about what's happening cause she comes home late and doesn't have time at all. So it's like she knows but she doesn't even say she actually looks at anything. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• I second this. Org or ALT1 are much better - interesting and focused on her primary reason of fame. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - maybe change to worldwide instead of Japan and China? See new sources describing as... Gulf News: has become a sensation around the world. IBT: Her popularity appears to be growing in the West too. Maybe change the text of the DYK to "has become a worldwide Internet phenomenon"? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  "Worldwide" looks good. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's probably for the best. If we do keep Japan/China in there maybe something along the lines of "originated in..." but yeah. "worldwide" sounds good to me. —  dainomite   09:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I've thought of something. April 1 is coming up soon, right? And DYK on Wikipedia is usually silly on April 1, right? Why not make a silly and awkward pun? Something like ALT3: ... that the prose-cute-or of the Republic of Crimea, Natalia Poklonskaya, annexed the hearts of countless Japanese internet users, in defiance of the threat of international sanctions? --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  I like it very much. There isn't much time left until April 1, but it doesn't have to be April 1. If we go with this hook, we should add a couple of sourced statements about Japanese people falling in love with her and about a threat of sanctions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

  I beg you not to go for April 1 on this. There are just so many waiting and this seems lovely enough to go at any time. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you! You are right, it was a bad idea to go for April 1. Too much competition, it would be published wihout a picture and go unnoticed. (Also, I think an April 1 hook must be misleading, and this one isn't.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a BLP about a female public official in a geopolitically sensitive area, with a majority of the article currently devoted to anime focused on this woman's physical appearance. Mainpaging the article in its current state and with the current hook is not in the best interest of the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this man an authoritarian ruler? Wikipedia seems to say so. He is a living person, but we follow the word of third-party sources.

This scenery is beautiful, however it does not have any sexual implications. The abstract concept of beauty can refer to admiration of aesthetic or non-aesthetic qualities, and is not concretely affixed on human sexuality.

• Yes, it is a BLP, but does that mean we should censor things that are well-covered in third-party reliable sources simply because some might find it objectable? On Wikipedia, we call many people dictators, even though they might personally object to such statements. We continue to call these people dictators, because the majority of third-party reliable sources refer to them as so.

  Furthermore, nowhere in the article does it mention anything about physical appearance. Quote: "She soon caught attention on the Internet because of her particular attractiveness amongst Japanese internet users", with a piped link to kawaii. She is adorned by people because of her mannerisms, behaviour, facial expressions and patterns of speech, in addition to her strong and important political position and ability to firmly speak her opinion, which provide a sense of moe and beauty in the eyes of these people. Whilst the article uses the word "beauty" (the original Japanese word is "美人すぎ"), this term is open, vague and flexible - the countryside of Tibet is beautiful, however I am not sexually attracted to grass fields, snow peaks and rock cliffs. You're making assumptions on things that aren't implicated in the article. --benlisquare_T•C•E 04:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the biography section currently takes up the majority of the article, not the Internet popularity section. Why does gender or "geopolitically sensitive area" matter? I don't understand. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I don't understand this "geopolitically sensitive area" reasoning here as well. Recently 1954 transfer of Crimea was passed through DYK and displayed on the front page, despite the current shenanigans in Crimea. In my opinion, I don't believe that these arguments are grounded in policy, logic or reason. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I've never had any experience with DYK, so can I check how does this DYK process work exactly? We've had a lot of discussion on how to improve content, and one oppose vote. How far are we from getting this passed as a DYK? I say this because I might not have much time to contribute to this article any longer. There's a ban on my future edits on BLPs being discussed. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

  We need a reviewer, someone will eventually come. The reviewer will read the article and check it against the requirements. The requirements we must remember when editing the article now are:

  1. The article must have minimum of one citation per paragraph, possibly excluding the introduction, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize information that's cited elsewhere.
  2. The hook fact(s) must be stated in the article, and must be immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source.

  Read all the rules here: Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide.
  There's nothing to worry about. The vote doesn't really matter as long as the article is okay. But I would still make the internet popularity section more encyclopedic and the gallery less conspicuous. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Full review needed. The bulk of the above discussion is by the creators; there are BLP concerns expressed, so the reviewer should keep that in mind, along with the usual length, newness, sourcing, neutrality, close paraphrasing, hook requirements, and other DYK review points. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • for ALT1. Length, date and hook checks out. Image is on Commons. Bloomberg, definitely RS, is the main source for the hook and checks out well. Not sure what the BLP issue would be, there is nothing derogatory in ALT1. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a note: I swapped out the picture that was originally submitted for another one that's also in the gallery. There is some rumbling in the Commons community about whether the fan art that is directly based off of the press conference is considered derivative work, and therefore, non-free. I replaced the image that was there, since it copied the pose and microphone setup of the press confrence, with one that still captured the 'press conference-ness', but wasn't based off of the video itself. TLDR: I swapped the image out in case Commons zaps the one that was there before. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I've swapped the image back cause we chose this one as the best. I think your reasoning is incorrect. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Since the image swapped back has not been approved, I'm putting a temporary hold on this until Sven Manguard can comment. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't see any problem with the image. It has not been tageed for deletion at Commons. --Soman (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
            • BlueMoonset - The relevant discussion is at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/04/Category:Natalia Poklonskaya, and until that is resolved, I won't personally push any image substantially similar to the press conference into a prep area (other people can if they want to), becuase I am concerned that the image might end up getting zapped. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
              • It won't get zapped that fast, even though there is discussion ongoing (and it's disputed as to whether they are derivatives, but let's not go that deep in right now). Discussions on Commons seem to happen very slowly, and Categories for Discussion on Commons take damn forever, I started this CfD at Commons on 27 September 2013, and it still hasn't closed; hence, I don't see the likelihood of anything being done for the duration where the DYK is taking place. That said, what is being discussed on Commons are allegations, and are not actually proven yet, so it would be unfair to assume that they are correct.

                If we really do need to use a different image, then so be it. We've had previous community discussion on the talk page regarding which one everyone found preferable, though. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

              • It's been days, are we really having a deadlock over an image? The current CfD discussion on Commons is already leaning towards the idea that nothing is going to happen to the commonscat as a whole. That said, for the sake of getting this DYK nom out of limbo, if we really need to change an image at the last minute, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Saramoka.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by As109.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Haiashi.jpg, File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Kriss Sison.png and File:Natalia Poklonskaya by phanc002.jpg are unaffected by the discussion. That said, worrying over the present DYK image isn't necessary, and we shouldn't leave this nom hanging like this. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
              • Yeah, this is really taking a bit too long. Could some other reviewers help? Thank you! starship.paint "YES!" 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
                • File:Natalia Poklonskaya by Kriss Sison.png does the job. --Soman (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • I like the current one much better. (It is the only picture that resembles her. It is also the cutest.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Newyorkbrad above:

Oppose. This is a BLP about a female public official in a geopolitically sensitive area, with a majority of the article currently devoted to anime focused on this woman's physical appearance. Mainpaging the article in its current state and with the current hook is not in the best interest of the reputation of the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• The TOC shows the article's emphasis:

• Biography
• Internet popularity
• References
• External links
  

• The gallery of five Natalia Polonskay fanart sample: Sample fanart of Natalia Poklonskaya originating from Pixiv plus the link there to view full gallery here focuses the article on her physical appearance and "cuteness" (Kawaii); there are no images of her real life appearance. The readers eye is drawn immediately to the many, colourful fanart portrayals. The Bloomberg News reference is an opinion piece, a primary source and not a "third-party reliable source" as stated by Benlisquare. Yet it is referenced 6 times in the article - way more than any other source. It's headline is "Cartoonish Crimean Prosecutor" and at the top over the headline is banner saying "If you were a Japanese man who spent too much time with comic books, would this be your fantasy woman? Source: YouTube". Opinion pieces are not considered reliable sources for news organizations:

  "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

• Please see Biased or opinionated sources from WP:RS. Also see Reliable sources for BLPs.
• Most of Natalia Poklonskaya suffers from Recentism and undue weight and therefore is not NPOV, especially bad for a BLP. 1954 transfer of Crimea happened 64 years ago.
  
• Also, barely mentioned in the article, and not mentioned in the lead: "On 27 March 2014, she was promoted to the rank of Senior Counsellor of Justice."

Is this a higher position (a promotion) than that of Prosecutor General of the Republic of Crimea? What is the meaning of this. The lead doesn't even mention the fanart stuff, yet roughly half of the article (including the many fanart images) focuses on this issue.

• The 4 citations to a BBC article[1] are very questionable as a reliable source for a BLP. The article written by "as found by BBC Monitoring" and is sourced to a youtube video in Russian with no translation,[2] and to an article in RocketNews called "Japanese netizens put reality on hold for a moment, fall in love with new attorney general of Crimea" containing attractive pictures of Poklonskaya gathered from personal websites.[3]

Parabolooidal (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

• In regards to the youtube inline cite, if I recall correctly the person who added it wrote in the edit summary that the purpose of the cite was only to cite the date the video was uploaded, and nothing else.

  "Senior Counsellor of Justice" refers to her rank, "Prosecutor" refers to her occupational position. Rank and position are not the same thing, so please don't get them confused. A tank commander can also be a sergeant, but a sergeant is not necessarily a tank commander.

  Now, when you refer to Newyorkbrad's comment, I don't find it particularly convincing, because it is not grounded in Wikipedia policy, and is largely based on subjective personal feelings and "I don't like it" sentiments. If he would like to clarify his comments, he is more than welcome to do so, but at this stage I don't believe that his words are to be taken much heed to. The statement that the article is about a female BLP in a contentious geographic region doesn't hold much ground policy wise (would it be any different if she was a man?), and it's nothing strange to have some coverage over internet phenomenon that's widely reported on. This article definitely can be expanded so that more biographical information is included (if you take a look at the Russian Wikipedia article, there is much more content).

  You mention that there are no images of her real life appearance, however this is definitely beyond our control: There have been numerous discussions regarding a non-free fair use image of her in real life, and such an image that was previously uploaded has since been deleted. It's an unfortunate case that there is no free-license photographic imagery of her available, however this is a sad truth that we can't really solve at this stage. Artists who draw cartoons of her are more willing to release their works under free licenses than media photographers working for Russian agencies (apparently on the Russian Wikipedia, people have attempted to contact various media agencies, but these attempts have yet to bear any results), most likely because these photographers rely on such photographs to make money. Good faith donations are more likely to occur when people are creating works voluntarily, as opposed to it being part of their daily employment, and I don't blame them for that. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply to benlisquare

The lack of free-license photographic imagery of her is not an excuse to include a gallery of five cartoon kawaii images of her plus a link to some 20 more. Also you chose the most kawaii of the images, instead of this one on the right.

Newyorkbrad is the senior member of WP:ArbCom, a member for some five years or so, has had input and contributed to existing policy guidelines, so I find it hard to take your word that his comments are not based on policy. Also, ArbCom has made binding decision on BLPs and WMF has made policy regarding what is appropriate content for BLPs.

Another editor has commented on the article talk page: "The citations are clearly not enough for WP:BLP, and the obvious WP:BLP1E violation and therefore lack of WP:FUTUREPROOF has been pointed out."

Have you complied with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?

Your explanation about Tank commander which redirects to Tank and sergeant do nothing to clarify what her job actually is or that she is notable per General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people).

Remember, you are trying to get a controversial article on a very recent event to DYK so that it will appear on Wikipedia's Main page. Do you think it follows WP:BLP1E?

Parabolooidal (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that the status of a user on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the validity or merit of their arguments. Being a member of ArbCom doesn't make his opinion any higher than anyone else's, and we don't take Jimbo's word as holy gospel either. If he wants to convince me, he is going to have to clarify his position based on Wikipedia policy, because his current position is left rather vague and unfulfilling. In fact, one might even say that his comment is rather sexist, as he indirectly implies that men cannot be idolised or made into popular cultural symbols. In my original response to his claims, I have referred to Wikipedia policy, phrase definitions and logical reasoning in my arguments. On the other hand, he has only mentioned his feelings, and provided his opinion on what he believes to be the best interests of the project. So in other words, he just doesn't like it. What is in the best interests of the project is subjective, and varies from person to person.

You asked a question about what "Senior Counsellor of Justice" means, and I explained it to you, I don't understand why you need to bite back for it like that. You originally mentioned nothing about notability, and made a statement which seemed to confuse what a rank was. When you say that I have failed to address WP:GNG when explaining what her rank is, this is known as moving the goalposts, as this was not in your original question. As for what her job is, her job is not her rank; I've explained this clearly, and if you still don't understand, then the problem is not on my side. Furthermore, tank commander redirects to a very useful section which I actually intended for you to read, it doesn't just "redirect to Tank".

I personally can't make the call for WP:BLP1E, but based on an earlier AfD, it appears that community consensus is leaning towards the article meeting notability requirements at least. Finally, I'm pretty sure the choice of images is the least of concerns at the moment; these images can be changed at any time, and the current selection is purely arbitrary. Let's keep the primary focus on the reliability of sources, which is more pressing, and concern ourselves with the triviality of images after that is done. The present state of the article can be fixed and our priority at the moment is sourcing, let's not lose our focus here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do you think it would be perfectly fine if there were a Commons category called [[Category:Barack Obama]] with subcategories [[Category:Presidents of the United States]] and [[Category:People of the United States]] and [[Category:1961 births]] etc. that was filled exclusively with kawaii type anime images showing how "cute" Barack Obama is? Would such images be OK for a gallery of images in the BLP of Barack Obama?
  See: Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. Which tag would justify illustrating Barack Obama solely with "cute" cartoon images of him?
  Is it that the situation in the Republic of Crimea is not serious, and that its current officials are not serious people worthy of serious coverage? And that cartoons are the best wikipedia can do for this article, if Natalia Poklonskaya is notable enough to have an article per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and the article is not a WP:BLP1E violation?
  

Parabolooidal (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've already explained to you my position regarding BLP1E, stop drilling it in like a broken record. If you believe that this fails BLP1E, nominate it for AfD, it's as simple as that. Your Barack Obama example is also moot, as there is already Commons consensus to move the category, and artworks of Obama are hardly covered in mainstream media. I also have no idea why you're linking to Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free, as it has already been explained to you that we have earlier had problems with using non-free photographic imagery of Natalia. Consider reading WP:NFCC - we are not free to use any non-free image whenever we want, because we "feel like it". Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, free as in freedom and not free beer, which is why WP:NFCC exists - if you don't like NFCC, don't complain to me, complain at WP:Village pump. Furthermore, none of this Commons business has anything to do with this current DYK nom on enwiki; if you want to discuss this, do it on the article talk page, and not here. There is no clause within the DYK rules regarding the titles of Commons categories, and you're essentially forum sliding here and distracting away from the main topic: address the DYK, and nothing else. Also consider reading Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view, which states, very clearly: "Commons is not Wikipedia". --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Seriously what is going on here? A protest because there's no real-life pictures? A free real-life image simply is not available. We tried to fair-use a screenshot of the conference, but it was deleted. There is no better alternative at this point. starship.paint "YES!" 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with NYB's comments above about the inappropriateness of this content in a biography. The person is a politician first and foremost, and while she may have made it as an internet icon, the amount and type of content is not warranted. If carefully worked, I can imagine a sentence in the biography about her profile, but it certainly does not warrant an entire section and a picture gallery. I have now removed the offending section as trivia, undue weight and recentist. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted Ohconfucius' total removal of the Internet popularity section. The information has been in the article since its creation and such a controversial edit should not be done without consensus. I find it ridiculous that just because it might be undue weight or recentist, the section deserves to be omitted entirely. See Edward Khil#Internet meme for an example of an article of featuring a person's dual thrusts for notability including being popular on the Internet. Ohconfucius can perhaps start a section on the talk page to discuss which sentences to trim from the section and from there obtain consensus. starship.paint "YES!" 04:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as a starting point. I'm open to having a sentence or two in the bio per my last comment, but what's there is simply ridiculous. You may add something back, but please don't put back all the fancruft. And as to the "has been in the article since its creation", this has little relevance as it's a very recent article whose content seems to be jealously guarded by the posse that created it and has not settled down (witness the discussion raging here). Whilst I have crossed paths with Moscow, one or two of the other nominators surprised me as born-again crufters who I never thought were particularly keen on trashy trivia. If you want the article to pass DYK, I suggest you so some trimming yourself. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, what's the point of this DYK nom if there's no longer a hook? And I'm quite certain that changing it to something bland and political like "did you know that she's a lawyer, yay" would be quite a disappointing outcome. I also think you're misusing the term WP:FANCRUFT, which is pointless drivel that only niche groups care about, and does not necessarily apply to things that are well covered by a country's national or mainstream media in significant quantities. I'm quite certain that rickrolling isn't fancruft either. Not personally liking something doesn't equate to fancruft, otherwise I'd finally have an excuse to delete all those rock bands that I personally dislike. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This edit by Ohconfucius looks like something specifically aimed at destroying this nomination. He did absolutely the same thing here: Template:Did you know nominations/Kanako Momota, repeatedly deleting the part of the article that was used for the hook. I believe his aim was to make it impossible to use the hook that had been already approved. These kind of edits are bordering on vandalism. (By the way, in case of Kanako Momota he succeded in changing the hook. He practically destroyed all my work cause th article appeared on the main page with a very uninteresting fact and went practically unnoticed.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: The way you say it implies this is again something aganst me personally... --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even the one who wrote the section you deleted. Please, could you leave the nomination? Cause the article is a creation of many people who's hard work you are destroying... --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)