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 SL93 (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 13:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC).
Note: It has been suggested that this article be merged into existing article on Rape during the Vietnam War. Cbl62 (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Cbl62: The so-called "existing" article was created just after my new article and its content is mostly what I originally used for creating American rape of Vietnamese women. Thanks. --Mhhosseintalk 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Regardless, the discussion will need to be resolved first. In the meantime, this nom can stay open, just "on hold". –LordPeterII (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination on hold while merge discussion continues. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: The merger discussion has ended with the consensus on merging the page into a broader article which is also new enough for the DYK purpose. What should be done now? --Mhhosseintalk 06:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Mhhossein, I've not run into this before, where the articles being merged were started around the same time, both were substantial, and the one nominated for DYK was older (September 2 vs. September 5) though it wasn't the one that survived. Unfortunately, the article histories haven't also been merged, so it's hard to tell how much of the original (nominated) article found its way into the surviving article—though I'm not sure whether that's germane. Why don't you ask at WT:DYK, pointing out that your article was begun three days before the one it ultimately was merged into, and that article wasn't nominated. It might (or might not) be helpful to link to the article history of your article (here), since it takes a fair amount of effort to even find it at this point. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
my view is that this nomination should probably be closed, as its constituent article is now a redirect; no prejudice against a nomination of the merge target. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: not ideally how I'd do it, but I suppose there's nothing wrong with that :) I've updated the credits and hook accordingly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: im going to review this article. However, I need to see a citation for your hook before I proceed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Onegreatjoke:, thanks for your interest. The citation is added now. --Mhhosseintalk 03:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Overall: @Mhhossein: Good and very important article. Though just to tell you. The bold link for the hook links to the redirect "Rape in the Vietnam War" rather than the article "Rape during the Vietnam War". Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Onegreatjoke: Nice to see you liked it. The RD issue is resolved now. --Mhhosseintalk 06:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Nomination on hold while merge discussion continues. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
my view is that this nomination should probably be closed, as its constituent article is now a redirect; no prejudice against a nomination of the merge target. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
reviewer needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Good and very important article.