Template:Did you know nominations/Sind Valley
- 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
age
Sind Valley
[edit]
- ... that the Himalayan Sind Valley (pictured) lies in the Vale of Kashmir and was formed by a river that originates at the Machoi Glacier?
Created/expanded by Mehrajmir13 (talk). Self nom at 02:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Article created by Mehrajmir13 on June 18, 2012. Article nominated for DYK on 3 July 2012, almost two weeks AFTER it was first eligible. Eligibility period is done and no compelling reason offered for WP:IAR to allow a very late nomination in this case. --LauraHale (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment : It is not done at least not this way. The WP:IAR says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. There are DYK topics pending for review even older than two weeks. The rule WP:IAR should also apply to them. MehrajMir ' (Talk) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- So a year late is ok? a month? Have to draw the line somewhere. PumpkinSky talk 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Mehrajmir13 , While reviews may be awaiting older nominations, the rules stipulate you nominate within a given timeframe, not that it be reviewed by then. What is the WP:IAR rationale you would use beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a nomination that was more than 10 days past eligibility period? --LauraHale (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- I‘m new at DYK and I thank everyone here for guidance and advice. What I was saying I was quoting WP:IAR, the rest lies at your hands the more experienced. Go ahead..... MehrajMir ' (Talk) 03:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't it to seem like we're discouraging you. Please do continue to write new articles and nominate. The article looks good and if not for the date part, would likely have been eligible, but the date issue is major issue as the article needs to be nominated within a set time frame of creation or five fold expansion. --LauraHale (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- @Mehrajmir13 , While reviews may be awaiting older nominations, the rules stipulate you nominate within a given timeframe, not that it be reviewed by then. What is the WP:IAR rationale you would use beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a nomination that was more than 10 days past eligibility period? --LauraHale (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
- So a year late is ok? a month? Have to draw the line somewhere. PumpkinSky talk 20:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Still no because nomination was too late. --LauraHale (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)