User:Gardenkur/North8000 stuff

Starting this page

@Gardenkur: With your permission as received at my page, and for the reasons discussed there, I started this page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@North8000: Thanks North8000. Will follow as you guide. As I told I dont know Wikipedia thanking ways. However, if you feel anyway my appreciation can be notable there, kindly guide me. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The main question regarding your work is "should this article exist?

@Gardenkur: The main question regarding your work on articles is "should this article exist? There are numerous policies and guidelines that reflect on this. The most prominent and important one for you is WP:Notability. I have read that guideline completely at least 8 times and there are probably another 100 times when I've re-read a portion of it. I ask you to read it through twice in order to start to learn it as much as possible. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @North8000: Sure in next few days will revisit this and any other policy you publish here for my reference. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This ONE is particularly important for you. I don't plan to recommend such a thorough read for any other policies or guidelines. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: So the important thing that I'm doing for you is to select / separate this ONE guideline from all of the other policies and guidelines to receive special attention. Please let me know when you would like want me to post the next step. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @North8000:. Thanks will follow as you guide. Will take couple of days or weeks and get back to you. If possible you can draft approach in principle. Sincerely and thankfully. Gardenkur (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I plan on teaching you some important and useful items after you have re-read that one guideline. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @North8000:. Hope you are keeping fine. Thanks for all your efforts and I promise I had started reading this policy statement by statement. I observed the policy had been carefully drafted with rare option to deletion keeping volunteer efforts of editor. I will take few more days to absorb this policy though I went through it few times to understand the depth and implications. You can post further links too for my reference as you get time as next few days I will prepare myself to understand and absorb this. Have a nice time and hope under your guidance can improve Wikipedia. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The most important thing to learn from there is:

In order to have a stand alone article, the topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

• "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. It's commonly accepted that two sources of this particular type are anough, and sometimes one is enough.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

So you are contemplating a separate article on the Jorhat Development Authority, you need to find 1-2 independent sources that talk in depth specifically about the Jorhat Development Authority

• Sources on Development Authorities in general don't count towards this "1-2"
• Sources on Jorhat don't count towards this "1-2"
• Sources just about one specific event within the Jorhat Development Authority (such as an election or promotion) don't count towards this "1-2"

So, if you can't find 1-2 sources of that special type, it should not be a separate article. In that case, it should probably instead be a section in the Jorhat article. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @North8000:. Thanks for the above suggestion. I agree and proceed as per your suggestions for towns which does not have significant coverage or which will need time to build up. Those Municipal Corporations which are recently declared from Municiplities or belongs to small cities can be covered under this. Such ones can be redirected. I feel its always good and safe to be redirected for article of any editor to keep his hard work. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Municipal Corporations article have a DIFFERENT main problem. A city article typically already has coverage of it's government, which, as I understand it, often IS a municipal corporation. So, when you make and article on a city's municipal corporation, you are in essence duplicating what should be in the city article. But they also have the same problem which is inclusion of a lagre amount of extra information that is not specific to the topic. For example, general information about municipal corporations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)