The following discussion 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 Allen3 ^talk 16:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• ... that Idaho politician Marvin Richardson had his name legally changed to Pro-Life?

• Comment: I hope this is still eligible. The original article was deleted over four years ago. The new version is completely overhauled and expanded.

Created/expanded by BDD (talk). Self nom at 03:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's eligible for DYK - it's whether the reasons that led to it being deleted are still valid. Does it meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians? It would only be under the general notability criteria of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I think it's debatable, to be honest. He's famous for one thing. Secretlondon (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it meets WP:GNG (or I wouldn't have recreated it). Since its deletion, the article's subject has been the subject of profile in three Idaho newspapers (two in the Boise area, one in the north) as well as national publications and websites such as The Daily Beast and Wonkette. I just added two of those sources as further reading, though I'll probably try to incorporate both as references. The Political views section, in particular, could still use work. --BDD (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• As there hasn't been an AfD filed for this new article after nearly a month, I think it is safe to say that it stable and won't see the same fate as its predecessor. I also agree with BDD that it passes the WP:GNG test especially since the guy is still being written about by independent mainstream press several years after the name change and 2008 run. As for the rest of the DYK criteria, though I can't compare it to the previously deleted version, I think this clearly qualifies as a new article with quite a bit of the content and sources coming from after the time of the old 2008 article. The article is neutrally written and well sourced, including the hook, and I see no obvious signs of plagiarism or close-paraphrasing of the sources. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 07:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the good assessment. You can compare to the old version if you'd like. I had an administrator restore the deleted version as a starting point; I didn't exactly start from scratch, but I think you'll agree it was a fairly comprehensive overhaul. This is the old version that was restored for me; here's a diff comparing the version with the present one. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)