Template:Did you know nominations/Kang Daniel

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Insufficient expansion, nowhere close to the required 5x; closing as unsuccessful

Kang Daniel

(

)

[[File:|133x150px|Kang Daniel ]]

Kang Daniel

... that K-pop singer Kang Daniel (pictured) broke the Guinness World Record for the "Fastest time to gain one million followers on Instagram" previously held by Pope Francis on January 3, 2019? Source: K-Pop star Kang Daniel has achieved a new record for the Fastest time to gain one million followers on Instagram after joining the social media platform on New Year's Day. Kang quickly gained one million fans, breaking a record previously held by the Pope Francis, who reached 1 million in 12 hours after debuting his verified Vatican Media channel 'franciscus' back in 2016.Guinness World Records

Comment: If possible I would like this nomination to be on main page on July 25, 2019

5x expanded by Moon Gin (talk). Self-nominated at 07:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC).

Hook will need to be tweaked for English usage: there is no "fastest time". Drmies (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I actually use the exact same term listed on Guinness World Records. In my personal opinion, I think we should stick to the official term used for the record itself, but I'm open to suggestion. Thank you.Moon Gin (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

A time can't be faster (or slower), strictly speaking. "Shortest time period" is more proper English, though I can't verify from home if Fowler's agrees with me. If it's in quotes, I suppose we have to go with it; it's just sad that Guinness is so sloppy. Drmies (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Regrettably, this nomination is not eligible for DYK. Since the article has been around since 2017, this can either qualify as a 5x expansion—made five times as long as it was—or as a newly passed Good Article. The latter did not happen, and the expansion is only from 5119 prose characters from 5794 prose characters, a 1.13x expansion. To make 5x, the article would need to increase to 25,595 prose characters, which is just not practical. I'm sorry for the bad news. If the article should ever become a Good Article—it would need a great deal of work to meet the Good Article criteria—you are welcome to renominate at that time. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)