This is an archive of past discussions with User:NeverTry4Me. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Bahjani, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
This is a special reward of mine. Whenever you might need some help with something (As long as its not Canvassing!) Just ping me, show me the coin, and I'll try to help out in any way I can. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@CollectiveSolidarity: Thank you for the coin. It's a pleasure to have some nice words from you. As per my adviser Admin's assistance, I always work on citation to help the articles. Let me complete that. I am somehow sure about survival because now Google translate allows translated url to use for citation and that makes easier for us. - Signed by NeverTry4MeTalk03:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Japarkuchi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lil-unique1 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Although this article passes WP:GEOLAND, the guidance does say that WP:GNG is presumed. This is not the case here, three of the four sources are WP:PRIMARY. Reliable third party sources need to provide coverage beyond the existence of the region.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Japarkuchi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Japarkuchi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
@CT55555: now it is a serious issue as per this review. You said I do find that not all reviewers at AfC know all the notability criteria. I would recommend you add a comment to the draft saying "Proposed in the context of this being a human settlement, therefore clear pass at WP:GEOLAND" to make it easier for them.. As per the reviewer @Lil-unique1:, I shall again nominate all 1700 one-line Kenya stubs with reference to this decline reason (with diff). CC: @Hemantha:, @Star Mississippi:, @MPGuy2824:. - Signed by NeverTry4MeTalk01:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome to challenge their review if you think it's incorrect. That's different, however, in disagreeing with it. You need to give policy based reasons why it's "poor". Threatening to nominate 1700 articles is pointy. Hemantha has been blocked so no need to ping them. Note, it's late here and I will be offline until morning. StarMississippi03:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi: how to challenge a review and where at? About Hemantha, I knew (checking hi's talk-page) he is running a meatpuppetry, but I didn't raise for sockpuppet investigation. - Signed by NeverTry4MeTalk03:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me - not a poor review at all. My understanding of WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND relies on non-primary sources and information that leads to an article beyond a simple sentence or two. If you don't like the review you're welcome to renominate (which I see that you have). Also please note WP:OTHERSTUFF existing or not is not an argument or valid reason enough for your draft to be kept. >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 11:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Piece of advice
focus on editing, stop with the dramatic quitting above and here. Heed @Chicdat's advice of staying out of areas that don't concern you/above your understanding and honestly stop the pointy behavior. You'll have a much better time here if you focus on what the project is for: improving content. StarMississippi13:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Apologies if the discussion had any controversy. I’ve replied in the talk page, and while we disagree, many thanks again for your helpful contributions; while we disagreed on assessing reliability (and I probably have a fairly low bar in GNG, but for me the ref is all right), I have no doubts that you are following good faith, your comments are helpful to the article’s improvement, and the adding of refs definitely show that! Thanks again for your help to the Wikiproject BTG! VickKiang (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
