Template:Did you know nominations/Mawza Exile
- 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) 15:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Article was originally created over a year ago, and has not been expanded per DYK rules. Please resubmit if it ever is listed as a Good Article.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mawza Exile
[edit]- ... that the Mawza Exile of the late 17th century is considered the single most traumatic event experienced collectively by the Jews of Yemen?
Created/expanded by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 02:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC).
This article does not appear to have been expanded sufficiently by this date, or moved, or promoted to GA, or anything that would make it eligible. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Give me a few days to work on its expansion, since our Sabbath day is coming on and I am unable to write. I will comply to all of your requests to cite the relative sources where requested to do so. Patience.Davidbena (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would be great, but my point is that DYK criteria require that the article have been expanded fivefold or newly created to 5K in size or received GA status as of the date of nomination. This article does not meet any of those ... it was already around its present length long before August 23, and I do not find any evidence that that was done, nor that it was moved to mainspace (no editing activity related to the article took place on the 23rd). Its ineligibility for DYK has nothing to do with its length or lack of citations at this point; it cannot be made eligible as far as I can tell. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine. I have no qualms about that, although, in truth, I hardly understand the criterion you mentioned, and if there is one that requires a certain length for a "good article," then I'd just assume pass it up. Good article status, at least for me, is a means to give encouragement and incentive to new writers. Be well and good luck in your work.Davidbena (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- That would be great, but my point is that DYK criteria require that the article have been expanded fivefold or newly created to 5K in size or received GA status as of the date of nomination. This article does not meet any of those ... it was already around its present length long before August 23, and I do not find any evidence that that was done, nor that it was moved to mainspace (no editing activity related to the article took place on the 23rd). Its ineligibility for DYK has nothing to do with its length or lack of citations at this point; it cannot be made eligible as far as I can tell. Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Give me a few days to work on its expansion, since our Sabbath day is coming on and I am unable to write. I will comply to all of your requests to cite the relative sources where requested to do so. Patience.Davidbena (talk) 03:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)