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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about rules belongs at WT:DYK, not here. The article meets the newness criterion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Everyting meets criteria regarding the general encyclopedic article requirements, but doesn't satisfy DYK eligibility. I checked every possibility and it fails. They are as follows:
The article was created on July 3 with 584 characters and it was well sourced. It was nominated on July 9, which is more than five days.
It cannot be saved by Wikipedia:DYKPN, because the current oldest date there is July 4.
To meet the expansion criteria it must be fivefold at least, which is 2920 characters. The current article length is 2842 even counting the section header text into it as well. (it was expanded on July 6 so the date would be fine but that alone is not enough)
To meet the BLP twofold expansion the original stub should be an unsourced one but the earliest status is well-referenced.
So altogether it fails the DYK nomination . LajbiHolla @ me • CP 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I saw that and I'm aware of the move (although I hadn't seen any guideline that is dedicated to namespace moving deadlines. Can you link one here?) Read again: it fails the other criteria. Just because it was moved it has to be fivefold, isn't it? It only means you worked on it on your namespace and the clock starts from the point you moved it onto the article but nothing special beyond that. And as I said in #3 in that case the date is okay but the fivefold isn't. LajbiHolla @ me • CP 15:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
An article is new to Wikipedia on the day it is created in mainspace, time spent in development in user space doesn't count. Therefore this article is new and ready for review. Gatoclass (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
So it means that just because you moved it from your sandbox you can backdoor avoid the fivefold expansion? Kinda controversial to me. And please someone link the guideline that says so. LajbiHolla @ me • CP 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
It's right there in the Eligibility criteria of the basic rules, I quote: d) Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace.. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
So if I paste a SHORTER article than the previous one it's still fine and "new"? Because if you take this as it is written than it works so. I don't think that means it can overrule the other citeria such as the fivefold requirement. But if it turns out to be true I just move a one-sentence expansion from my sandbox to the article and nominate it as new. I do a hard job here to reach fivefold length everytime I DYK something... LajbiHolla @ me • CP 10:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Lajbi, you're missing the fact that this article did not exist at all in article space until it was moved from Laura's userspace sandbox on July 8. If someone had typed "Maximiliano Óscar Rodríguez Magi" into the search box on July 7, they would not have found an article. In your hypothetical example, there is a previous article already in article space, and someone is pasting a version from their sandbox over the existing article: that definitely requires a 5x expansion, because the article already existed in article space, and Wikipedia readers had been able to refer to it before. (An actual paste does not show up in the article history as a move with 0 bytes difference.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
No. There was a July 3rd version created by the same user (earliest version). Or does the history only shows this because of the move? The history has a July 8 move already : 07:16, 8 July 2013 LauraHale (talk | contribs) m . . (7,906 bytes) (0) . . (LauraHale moved page User:LauraHale/Maximiliano Rodríguez Magi to Maximiliano Óscar Rodríguez Magi). And if so than how can a reviewer check the real creation date and what was on Wikipedia prior to that? LajbiHolla @ me • CP 14:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Do you need yet another person to tell you that ONLY the move to Main space (article space) on 8 July counts for DYK, while everything before, in user space, can take as long as a user wants? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't bother to answer to that unless you rephrase it in a more kind way. LajbiHolla @ me • CP 14:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Lajbi, you got it right in "does the history only shows this because of the move?". When a page is moved from ABC to PQR, the history also moves. Everything that is now seen as to be the history of PQR before the move was actually of ABC. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said it meets criteira (QPQ, copyvio, neutrality, hook length). La Voz de Galicia is a fine reference. Date is been let passed by other editors. LauraHale, Thine Antique Pen, sorry for the delay. LajbiHolla @ me • CP 17:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
As I said it meets criteira (QPQ, copyvio, neutrality, hook length). La Voz de Galicia is a fine reference. Date is been let passed by other editors. LauraHale, Thine Antique Pen, sorry for the delay. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)