Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 May 20

= May 20 =

02:43, 20 May 2023 review of submission by RDSJ2
Regarding the requirements for a "notable" designation, are there examples for scholarly journals that I could take a look at? Thank you. RDSJ2 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I do not get how it is not notable either Petjayso (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , please read Notability (academic journals). For examples, take a look at Category:Academic journals and its various subcategories. Pay special attention to the articles with a higher assessment. Do not model your work on articles rated "stub" or "start" Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. Appreciate it. RDSJ2 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

02:55:11, 20 May 2023 review of draft by 146.168.109.47
Atom Hovhanesyan chosen shorter version from "Hovhannisyan" when immigrated to USA July,1997, and naturalized as US citizen in 2003. 20 years of his short life he lived and worked in USA. Therefore He is American artist ,born in Armenia.

146.168.109.47 (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your entirely unreferenced and exceptionally brief draft fails to make the case that this artist is notable. It lacks complete sentences. This draft is nowhere near ready for the encyclopedia. Read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

03:28, 20 May 2023 review of submission by 1.47.16.104
The topic is clearly notable as a mythological figure and deity; the other one is Draft:List of media adaptations of the Investiture of the Gods (See, for example, List of media adaptations of the Legend of the White Snake and List of media adaptations of Journey to the West), but they have been under review for too long. I kindly request that you review these articles as soon as possible. Btw, pls add Italic on List of media adaptations of the Investiture of the Gods >>> Investiture of the Gods. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead section of your draft states that this person actually existed and then states in Wikipedia's voice that one of this person's children . That is inane drivel that will never be accepted in this encyclopedia. You state here at this help desk that this is a "mythological figure" but the lead section of your draft does not say that. Your draft will not be accepted "as soon as possible" because your draft in its current form is exceptionally misleading. You must clearly separate fantasy from reality. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm so pity you that you don't have much knowledge about Chinese folk religion. So RIP. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have written over 200 articles on Chinese folk characters using Draft, and I have never received such a rude response showing such a lack of knowledge on Chinese folklore like the one you provided above. Chinese folk religion is characterized by the evolution of oral legends and the blending of reality and mythology. It is a traditional cultural belief that is unique to China and India and has no parallel in the Western ones. Despite not existing in the real world, characters such as Sun Wukong are worshiped as deities, with over 50 temples dedicated to him. To deepen your understanding of Chinese mythology, it is recommended to research papers and study Chinese oral and folk traditions. However, I fixed as you suggested. Thank you. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You came here asking for advice, anonymous IP editor, and I gave you an honest critique of the lead section of your draft. You improved your draft in response to my observations. So far, so good. But then you decided to insult me, the person who gave you the advice you asked for, and then when other people commented, you argued with them and insulted them, and then strayed into administrative dictatorship fantasy land. If you despise Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines, then you are perfectly free to contribute to other websites with lower standards instead. But if you want to contribute to this top ten worldwide website, you need to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and stop insulting and arguing with your colleagues. That is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, IP, it is the reviewers, not you, who determine whether a subject is notable or not, and whether any such notability is born out by the referencing. That is largely the point of AfC.
 * Secondly, stating that your drafts "have been under review for too long" is both incorrect and unreasonable, given that they were submitted only 2-3 days ago. We do have other drafts to review, as well, not just yours – over 4,000 of them, in fact. If yours are still awaiting review in three months' time, then you may have a point.
 * Finally, why not register for an ACCOUNT, so you can publish your articles without going through AfC, as you're clearly finding this process frustrating? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to use my account to argue with rude editors and someone who lacks intelligence. If I say something wrong, they might very mean to me and get my account banned. Using an account does not feel like freedom, which is why I prefer not to use it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and under dictatorship of Admin panel. Well, You said that "it is the reviewers, not you". But does that mean I cannot speak to reviewers who make judgments without proper knowledge in a field they are not experts in? Shouldn't I have the right to criticize or point out any flaws in their judgments? I'm a senior scholar of Chinese mythology at Chulalongkorn University. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay then; if you prefer to edit from IP, that's your call, but you're then kind of stuck with us here at AfC. In which case, you may want to avoid the accusations and unreasonable demands, because they won't get your drafts reviewed any faster. Good day, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course you are free to criticise and debate, but this can and should be done in a constructive spirit. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and adversarial approaches are not conducive to collaboration, while personal attacks and insults are absolutely unacceptable.
 * As for whether you are a "senior scholar" (for which we, of course, have only your word), this is neither here nor there, and has no bearing on the draft review process. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems like you're getting it backwards. I have no intention of personally attacking anyone, but it appears that you and your colleague are actually insulting me. It would be best if you refrain from displaying your authority or exerting your power on Wikipedia. AfC reviewers are not more than nothing minors. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What would you call your remarks about "rude editors and someone who lacks intelligence", if not personal attacks?
 * And please point to where exactly I insulted you. I'll wait. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop editing earlier comments. The way discussion threads work is, you add each new comment after the previous one, and leave the earlier comments alone.
 * And with that, I'm done with this discussion. Bye, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your statement 'IP, it is the reviewers, not you, who determine whether a subject is notable or not' appears to assert your power. Secondly, your suggestion of 'why not register for an ACCOUNT' feels like pressure to me. Finally, your comment about my status as a 'senior scholar' and the fact that 'we, of course, have only your word,' seems like a challenge to my credibility. Regardless of your intentions, it is unacceptable to insult someone's educational background or opinions. Such behavior is considered very rude in Southeast Asian tradition. For PA, No, referring to someone who exhibits rude or unacceptable behavior as 'rude editors' is not a personal attack. If not that, then how else would you refer to them? For instance, would 'poor editors' be a more appropriate term?. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a simple statement of fact that we only have your word on your background and qualifications. No one said that they disbelieve you.  If you find this offensive, there's not much we can do about it. The same goes for if you feel "pressured" by a simple question about using an account.  No one is "asserting power"- simply stating the role of AFC reviewers. It would be like saying you are "asserting power" by telling us your qualifications.  In fact, your whole line of discussion seems to be accusing us of that which you are doing.
 * Again, if you find this process frustrating, there is a way to avoid it, but you've declined it, so you are stuck with us. Please assume good faith that we are here to help you. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, you're saying that I'm 'asserting power' by sharing my qualifications. Please be aware of what we're discussing. We're currently discussing Chinese folk religion, and I simply wanted to state that it's my field of research. I never claimed to be a professor or an authority figure. I don't care whether or not you trust me, as the role of a scholar is not of great importance. Why are you taking this so seriously? I have the right to defend those who criticize Chinese folk religion without knowing anything about it. You should stop disrespecting on the folk religion, as it feels like a personal challenge to me. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be taking everything that people say personally, I too am going to withdraw from this discussion. I would suggest that you change your approach. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've grown increasingly frustrated with creating articles about Chinese traditions on the Western dominated Wikipedia. This is why I've been away from my account for a long time. It seems that there is a stubborn refusal to investigate topics that are not well-understood. The only actions taken seem to be "deleting" and "denying". It's disheartening to see that native voices are not being heard. That's all. Bye 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You way wish to consider editing a Wikipedia version in a Chinese language which is more likely to have Chinese editors. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia.  Also, it is not required that editors be knowledgable in a topic area in order to participate in editing it, mainly because Wikipedia is written by lay people for lay people, summarizing reliable sources.  Okay, I'm really finished now. Good day to you. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Umm, as it was previously stated that 'Wikipedia is a collaborative effort,' and then you have also mentioned that 'it is not necessary for editors to be knowledgeable in a specific topic area to contribute to it.' Does this mean that Wikipedia does not value experts???? However, if you need to verify sources in the Thai language, it is crucial to seek the assistance of native editors. Please do not advise others that English Wikipedia does not require volunteers from other language Wikipedias, as it may be perceived as an arrogant attitude. Thanks. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That isn't anything close to what I said. Please see WP:EXPERT. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have already memorized all of Wikipedia's policies and essays like drinking water three years ago. I did this because many experienced editors tend to bully those who are not familiar with the policies. I am now like a tiger, not a cat. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright... I have decided to leave this article as it is for further review. I strongly believe that the topic is clearly notable, as he holds the dual roles of a court minister and a deity, which beyond the notability criteria. However, if the article is rejected, I'm prepared to discuss the matter with the reviewer who rejected it and file a complaint with the ANI. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there are no notability guidelines for a mythological "court minister and a deity", and your combative attitude here will not help you get the article accepted. Theroadislong (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, this means that you may need to update your knowledge on Wikipedia. First, it is important to understand the difference between a biography of a living person and a non-BLP issue. A deity is beyond notable, and a court ministers are automatically considered notable per WP:NPOL. A royal court is a joke to you??? See other articles in the same category in AfD for reference. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait!!! I have created over 500 articles in total during my time on Wikipedia. When I used an IP, I created almost 200 articles, and none of them were deleted or rejected. I mainly focus on my area of expertise and have created over 500 articles. How about you? Only have propaganda of the edior Onel?? 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are getting close to a block, I suggest that you either move on from this or change your approach. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not do nothing wrong and insult to other. Blocking me, an innocent person, is causing the truth to disappear from Wikipedia. Btw, It is still my philosophy that over past century royalty who are documented by one reliable source are notable. I would also add that insisting on multiple independent sources for historical figures from Southeast Asia or Africa may maintain systemic bias. by Robert McClenon said at once. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are here to post "the truth", you are operating under a misunderstanding. See WP:TRUTH. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you please point out any mistakes I've made? I'm here to enlighten those who refuse to acknowledge the significance of historical figures from over a thousand years ago. This is a different issue bcs there are no notability guidelines for them, as they are already notable due to their historical importance. They lived in ancient times, not in the Joe Biden's era. 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am reasonably confident that WP:NPOL does NOT include mythological/fictional characters from a book. Theroadislong (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you talking? He is not a fictional one, but a noble during Shang dynasty. Well, he had a historical tomb and is worshipped as a deity in Taiwan, which goes beyond our notability criteria. How much more evidence do you need? 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, If you don't mind, let's discuss this on the article's talk page instead of here. I am willing to devote my time to defending the Shang dynasty figures from your insults directed at them. Or see you at ANI when refuse notability. For now, let me retire here. Thanks 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1.47.16.104 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "beyond the notability criteria". 331dot (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you are right! so r u happy? Wiki admin always right! However... AfD will decide not you. As you mentioned earlier, "Okay, I'm really finished now. Good day to you." Why are you still continuing the conversation here after I have withdrawn from the discussion?  Please stay cool and keep your words while editing.  1.47.16.104 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

09:15, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Coderc Codes 77
Hi there! I am writing about a web browser called Arc (arc.net), as I realised there was not a wikipedia article for that. Arc Web Browser is a rather new browser, and thus there is not much information readily available. Therefore, I could not put many citations for my wikipedia article, and therefore it was rejected. Any tips for cases like this, and how can I make it in an even more neutral point-of-view? Thanks.

(And yes, Arc Web Browser is a fairly well-known browser with thousands of users with many big tech companies investing in it.) Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If as you say there "is not much information readily available" in independent reliable sources with significant coverage of this browser, it would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that. Articles summarize what independent reliable sources say about a topic. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so does this mean that it will not be possible to make that article at this time? That's sad, but alright. Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does not merit an article at this time. That does not mean forever, just not now. Once the browser becomes better known and independent sources start to write about it and its significance, that will change later. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Independent sources have actually written about it, but after checking the information, I realised that it is not true, which is why I worry when putting the citations in and therefore to not cite, as there is not really any actual information given from the official website. For example, a blog said that it was released in 2022. There was no official source that said when the first build was released(and I try not to use official sources since it may be abit bias), but digging into the twitter archive of @browsercompany showed me that it was actually released in 2021, as there was evidence that they had a public build before 2022. Does this mean that I can cite the independent sources, or should I just wait until it gets more significant and the company actually puts actual information out? Thanks. Coderc Codes 77 (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

12:18:31, 20 May 2023 review of draft by Barshuts
Having trouble with vetting the articles references as i cannot find for the life of me the errors in question before i can submit the page

Cite error group ref

Probably something really simple, but still learning!

BRSHTS 12:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * in the election results table, you're invoking a named reference 'turnout' (in ) but this isn't defined anywhere, meaning none of the existing ref tags is given the name 'turnout'. HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Resolved BRSHTS 10:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barshuts (talk • contribs)

13:42, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Naadis
please help too approve biography Naadis (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Naadis: this draft has been rejected and will therefore not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

15:14, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Ahron218
I want to delete my account. Ahron218 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ahron218: as explained at WP:Username_policy, it isn't possible to delete / close down accounts, but you may request a courtesy vanishing if you wish. Alternatively you can just stop using your account. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

18:30, 20 May 2023 review of submission by Farzan77far
I mention some reference but still the submission not accept. It just about the person who plays volleyball. The reason that not accept is commented that "Just passing mentions of being in a team is not notable, the team being a junior one even less". please help me. Farzan77far (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Farzan77far you only cite one source and that source appears to be some kind of forum or blog, which is not a reliable source. In order to meet the notability criteria, you need multiple reliable sources that have written about him in-depth, such as reputable newspapers, magazines or the like.  S0091 (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

23:02, 20 May 2023 review of submission by 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21
Why can't this be submitted? I don't fully understand. 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi IP, it was successfully submitted but not accepted because neither of the sources are reliable and/or independent. What Brightonthatbeat says about himself matters not.  What is needed are secondary reliable sources that have written about him in-depth. S0091 (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * a lot of the information that is provided are from the sources that were given. so i guess i don't know what else to put when there isnt a lot about my client. What is it thats needed? More from someone elses point of view? 2601:282:1401:2430:91C0:E149:D664:7C21 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)