This is an archive of past discussions with User:PantheonRadiance. 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.
Alpharad (YouTuber), 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.
I had a look through the Chuggaaconroy draft, and I must say you've done an excellent job with it. I thought the sentences flowed well, its wording is not promotional, and the sourcing is good, the ones you identified on my talk page definitely showcase notability. With regard to your concerns about the reception section, I do think that the changes you're planning to make would improve it, and I would also recommend removing Gamepur as a source, though Mashable and Softonic are fine. All in all, great work. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Devonian Wombat Thank you so much for reading through it, I really appreciate it. I'll try to take your advice and fix up the Reception section, and then I'll try to finish it up and hopefully submit it by next week. I hope it does get accepted and finally restored. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Gave the draft a follow up review as you asked, and I can't find anything wrong with it. Nothing more to say really, the recent changes you made to the draft fixed the few problems it had. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed your draft and rejected it. Here are the problems with it. First, I could not find a reference where somebody is providing in-depth information that wasn't simply echoing whatever Chuggaaconroy said himself. Getting profiled in Wired and NYT is good (for promotion) but not-so-good for establishing notability unless the journalist adds some independent content with their own opinion/research/etc. There are also far too many references and not all of them relevant. For example, you don't really need so many links on the sentence that starts with "On his primary YouTube channel, Rosales-Birou has produced ...." and you don't need two references to support an factoid is one will do just the same. The language is also still unencyclopedic in places if not a little fanboyesque. For example, why describe him as a "prominent" Let's Player in the lede? Also, who decided that he was "best known" for his "comprehensive" (?) videos? This language is not encyclopedic nor neutral. There are other statements that don't appear to be supported (although I'd question if they are even needed at all) such as "He was initially inspired to make Let's Plays by personalities such as .." Hope that helps. It needs to be shorter, less referencing, more to the point, remove the fluff, keep the tone factual and encyclopedia, if in doubt remove the adjective. HighKing++ 15:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@HighKing: As a good faith response, I have to disagree with some of the criticism you made, mainly because I already addressed a lot of the concerns you talked about.
First off, you should have read the notes I placed on the Talk page. I forgot to write a comment telling the person who reviews the article to check that first, my apologies.
Second off, I take it that "echoing whatever Chuggaaconroy said himself" refers to primary vs. secondary sourcing, and I have to object to you not finding a single source with in-depth information. Wired and the NYT are already considered as reliable sources independent of Chuggaaconroy; those articles weren't written to state that one should "subscribe" to his channel but to report information about his content, and the Wired source especially counts as in-depth information on Chuggaaconroy's videos (he is the main focus of the article after all).
For the Wired article, it counts as a secondary source as it mostly consists of synthesized information from both him and his videos, along with other primary sources; it isn't a mere Q/A article where most of the text consists only of statements made directly from Chuggaaconroy. While the article does contain SOME quotes from him, the writer clearly interpreted the quotes such that it stands as a secondary source with the author's own analysis.
While it could have been longer, the New York Times source had two paragraphs which discussed his channel along with how his channel grew in popularity, and while quotes are used, the section doesn't entirely consist of it and for the most part is independent and secondary (for clarification, I judge an article on whether or not the amount of primary info on the subject outweighs the secondary analysis of such info).
And third, "also, who decided that he was "best known" for his "comprehensive" (?) videos? This language is not encyclopedic nor neutral."
He is best known for his comprehensive walkthrough videos because that's exactly what multiple secondary sources have described his video content as, which is already addressed in the body of the article under the "Commentary and Video Style" section. The "comprehensive" adjective is used as a synonym for "informative" and to describe his video style; as aforementioned, his gaming videos consist of him showcasing every aspect of whatever game he plays to 100% completion (as in, every quest, boss battle, Easter egg and whatnot), which different sources in the article already touched upon. I merely synthesized that information into that sentence, establishing a claim of importance. (although if you really wanna split hairs, the aforementioned Wired article considers him best-known for that; I quoted a sentence from that article and put it in the section). It isn't fanboyism in the slightest and it's completely neutral - if I were to say "he is best known for his amazing or critically acclaimed videos" or "he's one of the most well-known YouTubers in the Let's Play community" without finding any exceptional source for that claim, then maybe your argument would have some ground to stand on. However, I based the diction of that sentence solely off of the sources I found which discuss his content, and I made extra sure to remove the puffery in the article itself. I also find it funny that a generally formal word such as "comprehensive" is apparently not "encyclopedic."
As for other miscellaneous notes:
How was the article not straight to the point? The article clearly states that he's a Let's Player who makes detailed, informative video walkthroughs on Nintendo games.
"There are other statements that don't appear to be supported (although I'd question if they are even needed at all) such as 'He was initially inspired to make Let's Plays by personalities such as ..'" - That information is relevant because Proton Jon not only inspired Chuggaaconroy to pursue Let's Plays, but he along with Chugga created the collab channel The Runaway Guys, which is explained in the sub-section later on and is confirmed in the Wired article and the Girls on Games interview. Omitting that information would make his history as a YouTuber incomplete as it would remove Proton Jon's influence on Chuggaaconroy, and would leave a hole in the information for TRG. Also, I put the references at the end of the short paragraph because I didn't want to add a citation on every sentence; that would break up the flow of the paragraph (think "The sky is blue[1] and consists of clouds[2][3]"). The only exception is the paragraph listing the games he's made videos on, which I used for verifiable proof and examples of his tendency to make Let's Plays based on Nintendo games. Of course, some of them can be deleted.
Finally, I wanted to establish this point, since you brought up the idea on fanboyism.
My intentions to restore the article weren't to promote his channel, which of course is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Rather, in a good faith rationale, my purpose was to improve the coverage of Let's Play channels on this site along with the Let's Play genre as a whole, specifically to distinguish between Let's Play channels who typically play games in a humorous manner (think Markiplier and Jacksepticeye) and LP channels who aim to make their videos informative akin to walkthroughs, like TheRadBrad and of course Chuggaaconroy. If Chuggaaconroy's coverage solely consisted of references with trivial 1-2 sentence mentions or name drops, I wouldn't have even bothered to restore this article in the first place. But the Wired article alone significantly covers him, and other sources which mention him in at least 100 words or more prove otherwise. While he hasn't received as much coverage as the likes of PewDiePie, the coverage he has received is relevant and significant enough to warrant him having a Wikipedia article.
Anyway, thanks for reviewing the draft regardless, and I apologize in advance if I sound a bit hostile in this response; I had a long week finishing up schoolwork and I'm not in the most upbeat mood.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HighKing was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia articleāthat 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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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.
Ā The comment the reviewer left was:
Has been deleted 4 times previously with the most recent 11 months ago. The article is refbombed so there are a lot of references but most are rubbish from the point of view of establishing notability. There are a couple of references which talk about Chuggaaconroy but the vast majority are simply printing his opinion, not providing and neutral third-party comments. Number of "viewers" is no indicatation of notability. Fails WP:BIO.
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 when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Chuggaaconroy 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:Chuggaaconroy, 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 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, PantheonRadiance!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! HighKing++ 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
TeamFourStar, 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.
@Bilorv: LOL, thanks so much! Sorry for the late reply, I took a little Wikibreak to enjoy the rest of my summer vacation and prepare for my upcoming school year. š PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I skipped it because it's not a straightforward case. I'll let another admin look at it. The draft has been deleted 5 times before this one, and for different reasons. I believe the restoration will have to be selective. Jay(talk)06:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh okay. The reason why I wanted it to be restored was because I found 20 secondary sources from reliable outlets which talked about the streaming group's videos and gaming content. Sites such as Kotaku ([1], [2], [3][4]), VG247 ([1]), PCGamer ([1]), Vice ([1]), The Daily Dot ([1], [2]) and Nintendo Life ([1]) have covered their videos in significant enough detail which should satisfy WP:WEB and WP:BASIC. However, the draft had been rejected multiple times because most of the sources used came from either the group themselves or unreliable blogs, and it perplexed me how the draft editors failed to even acknowledge these sources, let alone use them. If you could find another admin, that would be great. I'll post the full list to the original editors of the article once the draft gets restored. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes, people do things that they'd rather not do, maybe someday there'll be a "sewer cleaning" barnstar for those who do the really erm, "stinky", jobs. But for now there's this one. Good work on Keemstar.
@The Alternate Mako: Oh wow, thank you so much! Personally Keemstar is one of my least favorite YouTubers, so up until his retirement announcement I never thought that I would edit his article, let alone get a Barnstar for it! Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I had schoolwork I needed to take care of! PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
On 17 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maximilian Dood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Digital Eclipse expressed interest in rereleasing Marvel vs. CapcomĀ 2 after Maximilian Dood's social media campaign went viral? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maximilian Dood. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Maximilian Dood), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
I am not an administrator, but that page is pretty well patrolled, so someone will see your request soon. I also put in a comment, so they didn't think I was objecting to your request when I "declined" it. Happy Editing--IAmChaos22:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Slowbeef, 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.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
first of all, thanks for the help on the draft! I aprreciate itĀ :)
Secondly, I kind of left the whole draft alone, since I got a message that "Submission is about a person not yet shown to meet notability guidelines", so I figured no matter how much I'd continue to tinker it wouldn't really matter. Did I get that right or was it also due to a lack of quality that the draft has been rejected? I was hoping you could help me with this since I can't seem to find an answer elsewhere.
@Mika MĆ¼ller-Popkes: Hello, hope you're having a wonderful day (or night) as you read this, and I should thank you for creating the draft on Northernlion in the first place. I won't say that I'm a hardcore fan of his, but I've watched a couple of his Binding of Isaac videos in the past and I've enjoyed them quite a bit!
To answer your question, the main reason why Northernlion's draft got declined wasn't because of a lack of quality per se, but rather the draft didn't fulfill the requirements necessary for a topic or person to have an article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has tons of guidelines regarding the general content we cover on this website, but arguably the most important guideline we follow is the notability guideline, which is the criteria that the draft didn't meet at that period of time. The notability guidelines itself has a ton of different pages depending on the topic, but simply put, see the general guideline. It says that in order for any topic or person to have a Wikipedia article, they must have received significant coverage in secondary sources (such as news articles, books, and in some cases interviews) that are reliable and independent of the subject. There's no minimum number of sources, but generally two or three good sources are acceptable. To get an idea of acceptable sources on Wikipedia, think about articles from news outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian or even IGN and Polygon.
At the time I discovered the draft around April 2022, the Northernlion page mainly consisted of his own YouTube videos, his own tweets or other primary or questionable sources. While in some cases you're allowed to use primary sources directly from him such as his YouTube videos and tweets, articles on Wikipedia should contain information mostly from secondary sources, either from published books or media outlets. That's why KylieTastic declined the draft, because it needed more secondary sources that significantly covered him and/or his video content.
Fortunately, you're in luck! These past few months I searched for articles for Northernlion and found several that determine his notability. Sources such as Polygon, TubeFilter, TechRadar, Yahoo! News and PC Games are all considered reliable on Wikipedia, and they have covered Northernlion's career enough for me to base information around. So he's quite close to passing WP:GNG - I haven't submitted it yet however because I want to add a few more edits later on. But it should be mostly fine now.
Finally, if you want to continue making articles yourself, here a couple of resources I consult whenever I have an idea for an article, or want to edit a page with reliable sources:
WP:RSP - A list of sources deemed reliable or unreliable to use on Wikipedia backed by community consensus. If you ever want to ask if a source is reliable, you can ask on the noticeboard.
WP:VG/RS - A list of video game-related news outlets deemed reliable or unreliable. I edit gaming articles often so I always check this page every other day.
WP:100W - An essay that states that 100 words or more written about a topic count as significant coverage. Wikipedia doesn't have an official word count on what counts as significant, but if a topic has multiple reliable sources with over 100 words written about it, the topic should count as notable.
Also, you can visit the Teahouse to ask questions about editing as well.
Anyways, happy editing! If you do find more news outlets that cover Northernlion, feel free to add them to the draft.
thank you for your lenghty and very helpful reply! I've never realized the important role of secondary sources for Wikipedia articles, but of course that makes a lot of sense if you need to determine the notability of a person/organization/other thing. So thanks a lot for explaining that to me as well as adding some of those secondary sources to the draft as well. Hopefully I can find some more as well.
I'll also keep those links you mentioned in your message pinned somewhere, since they seem to be really convenient for the whole editing process.
@Mika MĆ¼ller-Popkes: You're very welcome! Also, thank you for adding an extra Polygon source to the draft as well; I really appreciate it. At this point I'm sure Northernlion passes WP:GNG. I can make a few more edits, but if you want, you can go ahead and submit the draft whenever you feel it's ready.Ā :) PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
@PantheonRadiance I'd be down with submitting the draft as it is now! I was just about to upload a non-free picture to Wikipedia Commons, but I guess that won't work until the article is actually featured on the mainpage, so I think submitting it would be the next best step nowĀ :) Mika MĆ¼ller-Popkes (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Perfect! I think it's pretty much done too, there aren't many sources I need to add to the article anymore, and anything else I could add, I could save for later. I'm going to leave a comment on the draft however to prove to AfC reviewers that he meets GNG. Thank you so much for your work! PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
GeorgeNotFound move
Hey, if the AfC reviewers continue to be unreasonable, would you be open to a move of Draft:GeorgeNotFound to mainspace like 331dot suggested? It's true that the AfC process is optional, and I believe I wouldn't be restricted in moving it myself, even with the salting. I do think it could survive an AfD discussion if it had to come to that, though of course that isn't certain; editors sometimes vote without thoroughly looking at the article, as we've seen in the AfC review. I'm willing to do it if you're on board! BappleBusiness[talk]09:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey BappleBusiness, sorry for the late reply. I'd be down with a page move, but my only concern is that other editors may immediately get trigger happy with reverting or even AfDing the page. If you want to move it yourself, I suggest perhaps posting an explanation on the talk page on why he's notable now first, then leave a comment on the page for any New Page Patrollers explaining to them to read the explanation before suggesting deletion. This way we could pre-emptively prove it's notable, or at the very least perhaps reach a better consensus with other editors. Also if you want, you can even use the source table I made, or make your own. But if it does come down to another AfD, I'll back you up and share my reasoning on why he's notable once more. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Vinesauce, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions ā kudos to you! 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.
The Living Tombstone, 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions ā kudos to you! 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.
Hello there PantheonRadiance! I hope you are well, my friend. It's been a minute. A while back, we were both involved in a discussion concerning Deji's notability. I've finally found the time to create an RFC, which you've been pinged on. Check it out! Hope you've been well. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey DrewieStewie, sorry for the wait, I took an unofficial Wikibreak to finish my finals. Good job taking the initiative in setting up the RfC! I've actually been periodically searching for more sources these past few months about Deji to ensure that he meets the guidelines. Maybe depending on how the RfC goes I'll post a source table of what I've found that contributes to his notability. If you found any new sources, let me know too! Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Wonderful! If I find anything, Iāll let you know. Hopefully we can get access to a previous draft from around the time of the prior deletion review. It would be a great thing to build on so we wouldnāt have to start from scratch. A positive RFC result would certainly help with that. There certainly has been no opposition to a draft at minimum thus far. Glad you enjoyed your brief wikibreak.Ā :) DrewieStewie (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The RFC has now been closed in favor of starting a draft and removing Deji from DEEPER. Is there any avenue to request a copy of a deleted article circa October 2022-January 2023 as a draft blueprint? I recall them being significant and well-sourced. Good work on providing sources that passed a source review in the RFC. We will have to request unsalting for Draft:Deji Olatunji too. DrewieStewie (talk) 03:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@DrewieStewie: I would say to post another deletion review to ask to restore the draft, but considering that DRV was what led us here in the first place and we just had the lengthy RfC, I think it would be faster if we just show the admin who deleted the draft the RfC and request them to restore and unsalt it, either in draftspace or one of our sandboxes. If you want to also work on creating a draft from scratch, I can also give you a couple sources as well to help you. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The Draft is live again. First thing we will need to handle is replacing fandom content with reliably sourced content. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
DrewieStewie Hey, it's great that we finally have access to the draft! I wrote down parts of the career section yesterday so I'll post it to the draft. After that I'll check and edit the draft occasionally to see its progress, but I'll let you work on fixing up the rest. When youāre ready to submit, be my guest! I'll write a message on the talk page explaining Deji's notability and making sure AfC editors understand his notability compared to the multiple times his article was deleted before.
Also, if you find any more reliable sources, feel free to add. You should have access to the Wikipedia Library, but there are also places that might also have coverage on Deji - Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, Google Books, etc. PantheonRadiance (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Appreciate your help! Now that Iāve gotten all the bureaucratic business handled, I am now finally happy to work on this. Letās make some WikiMagic! DrewieStewie (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello to whoever wrote this message. I don't know if the person who asked this will find my response, but in case it does, thank you for asking me. About Reckful, I didn't have any plans to get his article to GA status because I've only heard of him passingly through the internet grapevine. However, upon reading his article I found his story quite compelling, and think there may be potential here for GA. Perhaps in the near future I'd be down with working on his article, but I'll probably wait if any of the main editors of the Reckful article also have plans to bring it to GA status. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed you mentioned that one was from a wikiproject that does "B-Class assessments", so isn't technically B-class -- it is nowĀ :) BCR was a thing that was fairly popular years ago, but imo isn't relevant or workable on modern Wikipedia -- the military history project uses it, though, so it technically still exists.
By the way, that article could pass GAN easily, and probably FAC. The notable-to-GANable and GAN-to-FAC lines are pretty thin for books, so there are a lot of them amongst quality-assessed articles (1.7% of WikiProject Books articles are GA or FA, compared to 0.7% of all articles). The GAN backlog drive is coming up soon (I strongly recommend participating, btw), so it might not take too long to get reviewed if you nominate it now. It also might be an easier article to learn how FAC works while working on Etika, if you're interested in taking it there. Vaticidalprophet06:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet Oh wow, thanks for the reassessment! Funny thing, I actually planned on nominating The Creative Gene as my first GA so I could have a DYK fact about the book appear on Kojima's birthday (August 24th), but I decided to shift focus to see if I could get Etika to appear on DYK first. I was going to nominate the book last month, but I kept putting it off to the point where I felt it was too late for it to appear on DYK on his birthday. However, if the GAN drive is happening soon, maybe there's a slight chance it could get on DYK on the 24th if I get timely feedback. If I have time tomorrow, I'll try to revise the page then nominate it this weekend.
As for the drive, I may check it out but I can't keep any promises. This upcoming month may be quite busy for me, so if I do decide to participate I'll probably only have time to review one article. Maybe the next time a GAN drive happens I'll have a lot more time (and experience) to help out with it. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Impossible Quiz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hmm, that's odd. Looks like the moment I nominated it on the 28th, it got immediately removed and "approved" for nomination, yet it wasn't reviewed yet and I didn't see it on the approved page. Is this a mistake or glitch of some kind? Has this happened before? Pinging admin theleekycauldron. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Weird! Looks like WugBot edit conflicted with you, loading up and editing the version of the page that existed before you transcluded your nom. I've retranscluded it for you, should be fine nowĀ :) pinging Wugapodes as bot op, in case there's any race conditions they want to put in for this. theleekycauldron (talk ā¢ she/her) 21:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations on the promotion of The Creative Gene to GA! It's great to see so much love for a video game book; I hope it encourages others to do the same. You should be proud of your work. ā Rhainā (he/him)08:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
On 12 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Creative Gene, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in his book The Creative Gene, Hideo Kojima(pictured) revealed that he would sacrifice his position as a game designer to go to outer space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Creative Gene. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Creative Gene), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi PantheonRadiance, why did you write "If this somehow gets closed as delete instead of relisted, I'm considering doing a deletion review anyway" in this diff? That isn't how Deletion Review works - you don't foreshadow a deletion review within an active discussion. It comes across as trying to create a chilling effect for what may have been a legitimate course of action (closing as 'delete'). I can't say I have ever seen someone foreshadow taking a discussion to DRV before it's even been closed in my time editing, and I don't want to see it become a thing that happens - and on that basis, I would encourage you to strike that part of your comment in the discussion. Regards, Daniel (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello Daniel, I said it not for a chilling effect, but rather because of the timing. At the time I first replied to the discussion, I saw that it had been a week since the AfD first started (11/25) and I thought the debate would close soon. Since the consensus seemed to sway towards delete, I half-expected that the debate would most likely close instead of a relist, even with the two late keep votes. There have been times (2 exactly) where I managed to get to an AfD late and share my thoughts, only for the debate to close. And for the record, if it did close as delete, I would have asked the closer first in line with the DRV policy, but I guess I didn't communicate that as well as I thought - my apologies. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Two things I'd like to expand on - one wording, and one to do with WP:DRVPURPOSE.
Firstly, you wrote "If this somehow gets closed as delete instead of relisted, I'm considering doing a deletion review anyways". The word "somehow" strongly implies that you find it incredulous that an administrator may close as delete, despite there being a pretty clear consensus to delete at the stage you wrote the comment. This only adds to the chilling effect that is created in my opinion - you're passively criticising a decision in advance. If you want evidence of said chilling effect happening from your comment, please consider the fact that I've decided not to close this because I don't want the inevitable run at DRV you've foreshadowed. I normally don't shy away from closing tough AfD's - there's a section on my talk page about this very thing - but that comment in the discussion has made me not want to go near closing it.
Secondly, I don't understand what rationale of DRVPURPOSE your hypothetical DRV would be filed under - it can't be #1, as a consensus potentially exists to delete (and definitely did when you wrote your comment). I also don't believe #3 applies as you haven't really brought "new information", simply an alternate policy interpretation. I guess you could potentially argue #5 on the basis that you commented late and your comment wasn't considered by others for long enough, but my gut feeling would be that it wouldn't be a slam-dunk - and definitely not black-and-white enough to be calling out in advance.
I'd still like you to strike that sentence in the AfD - or alternatively, at a minimum, consider striking some and rewording it to better capture your intent around it being relating to your late !vote (per your comment above). Up to you though, and I won't press the issue any further if you disagree and want to leave it unchanged.
I struck the sentence in my recent edit, along with adding extra sources. I initially wanted to add those in my original comment, but I felt it was already long enough (but ironically I added another long comment as well - brevity's something I need to improve on a lot more). So I omitted it on the outcome that it would get relisted, and if it didn't, planned on sharing them with the closer while asking for a relist first. If the closer and I disagreed, then the DRV would've taken place as it usually does.
Anyway, I would've applied both #3 and #5 of the policy in that hypothetical DRV. It was my intention to ask for a relist for more time to consider the late votes Skyshifter and I added, along with deeper discussion on the sources. For #3 I felt (at the time) that my vote wasn't just an alternate policy interpretation, but qualified as new information that would've furthered the debate - that the streamer also fits other potential SNGs that weren't considered yet in the discussion. And of course in light of such SNGs, discussing whether the sources presented in the article proved that he passes such criteria. And you explained my thought process for #5; thank you for that.
After reading your response, I see how my actions created that chilling effect. I admittedly acted hastily when I saw that it had been a week, and was fretful it would close. So I tried applying common sense by considering a potential course of action: if an AfD was nearing its end, and there was the possibility of no relist even with a late vote, then perhaps consider a DRV. In retrospect, that was quite misguided judgement on my part. My apologies towards you and any other potential closers of the debate, as it was not my intention. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
