Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Archive 20

A lot of drafts to tweak and publish
I believe there was an education or WP:GLAM project relating to Korean literature. They generated a lot of draft articles, many of which were unfairly (in my opinion) declined. I have accepted a significant number of them already, and there are more to check over and tweak/approve as appropriate. Please have a look at the following drafts to improve/accept them (or possibly in rare cases determine they aren't worthy of articles -- I doubt this often applies): Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:An Heon-mi
 * Draft:Choe Dooseok
 * Draft:Choecheokjeon (최척전 The Tale of Choe Cheok)
 * Draft:Eom Won-tae
 * Draft:Ha Sangwook
 * Draft:Hong Changsoo
 * Draft:Hwamongjip (A Collection of Romance and Dream Journey Stories)
 * Draft:Inhyeon wanghu jeon (仁顯王后傳, Story of Queen Inhyeon)
 * Draft:Jo Yongho
 * Draft:Jung Hanmo
 * Draft:Kim Chong Kwang
 * Draft:Kim Deok-ryeong
 * Draft:Kim Eon Hee
 * Draft:Kim Eui-kyung
 * Draft:Kim Joong-sik
 * Draft:Kim Jun Tae
 * Draft:Kim Kyoungin
 * Draft:Kim Moon-soo (Novelist)
 * Draft:Kim Myung-su
 * Draft:Kim Sa-i (Poet)
 * Draft:Kim Yeonkyung
 * Draft:Kim Youn Bae
 * Draft:Ko Jinha
 * Draft:Ku Jung-seo (literary critic)
 * Draft:Memilggot pil muryeop (메밀꽃 필 무렵, When the Buckwheat Flowers Bloom)
 * Draft:Memoirs of Lady Jo of Pungyang
 * Draft:Min Gyeong-hyeon
 * Draft:Park Cheong-ho
 * Draft:Seo Joon-hwan
 * Draft:Seong Mi-jeong
 * Draft:Sohn Won-pyung
 * Draft:Tales from the Green Hills
 * Draft:The Black Leaf in My Mouth
 * Draft:Woodblock commercial publication in Korea
 * Draft:Yeom Seungsuk
 * Draft:Yoo Juhyun
 * Draft:Yu Sun-ha
 * There are also a few more drafts that are trickier; they were declined as duplicating existing content, but I don't know if the myths themselves deserve separate articles. They are as follows:
 * Draft:Myth of Bak Hyeokgeose (Foundation Myth of Silla)
 * Draft:Myth of Dangun
 * Draft:Myth of Jumong (Foundation Myth of Goguryeo)
 * Draft:Myth of King Kim Su-ro (Foundation Myth of Gaya)
 * Thanks again, Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Reviews by Piotrus

 * You are right, many of them should have been published.
 * I have reviewed Draft:Yu Sun-ha. The reviewer, User:SamHolt6, published a helpful rationale for decline, noting that many sources are hard to verify. This is true - up to a point. I was able to verify one and I have no reason to expect the rest would be hoaxes. The problem is that the creator did a cardinal sin of murderinzg the references by 1) translating them to English and 2) not providing original Korean name nor links. So of course attemtping to verify whether a reference "Kim, Pyo-hyang. “Baboaje by Yu Sun-ha Wins EBS Radio Literary Award.” Chosun Ilbo, December 11, 2013" exists is hard, as a google search for it procudes nothing but Wikipedia mirrors, since google doesn't understand that is Kim, Pyo-hyang is 김표향 or 'Baboaje by Yu Sun-ha Wins EBS Radio Literary Award' is 유순하 작가 '바보아재', EBS 라디오 문학상 대상 수상 and so on. Pretty much all the refs used are Korean, and they need to re-Koreanized (and linked). If some are offline, like the newspapers from the 80s, this is... very challenging. Unfortunately, my Korean is only rudimentary and fixing all the references would be very time consuming, but if most other drafts have the same problem, well, it is fixable, and the topics appear to be notable, and I support mainspaciong them promptly. I would do it myself but I find draft-related procedures arcane so I am afraid to tackle them (outside just deleting all the draft code and moving the article 'the normal way'). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Continuing, I have reviewed Draft:Yoo Juhyun today. The article is badly formatted, but he seems to have biographical articles in severla Korean encyclopedias (linked in the article). He is therefore obviously notable, and the article, while badly written, would not be deleted per WP:TNT if it was created in the mainspace. It should be moved to mainspace and left there until someone fixes it. It is still informative (just underlinked and with bad citation style). (It was declined by User:KartikeyaS343 for unreliable sources, which is bizarre, as the article clearly cites books, encyclopedia and reliable newspapers, all just badly formatted). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also reviewed Draft:Yeom Seungsuk. Identical case as above, this one was declined by User:Whispering for not using footnotes. Again, if it was mainspaced it would not be an issue. I am increasingly coming to believe the Draft system is resulting in a net loss of a lot of valuable content. It would take 5 minutes to add references here, and clerly writing this article took someone much longer (and the topic is clearly notable).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Continuing. Draft:Woodblock commercial publication in Korea is the worst so far, it cites a reliable encyclopedia but has no inline references and it is not clear if the content is adaquately supported by the references. As such, I cannot criticize User:Sulfurboy, who rejected in the ground of insufficient RS. This could be rescuable, as it is informative, but it should be referenced better. Of course, if it was submitted to the mainspace, would it be AfDed? Would it be deleted? Hard to be sure. I do think that by deleting this we will loose helpful and likely correct information, on the other hand, I do agree that we need to enforce higher standards than a decade ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:The Black Leaf in My Mouth declined by User:Sulfurboy as "not adequately supported by reliable sources". I really don't understand this. Every paragraph is referenced. Referenced are mostly reliable (one reference is to Korean Wikipedia, but others appear referenced to Korean newspapers, encyclopedias, databases or books). Many references suffer from the problem of having their titles transcribed or translated instead of retaining the original Korean title, and ISBNs were not provided, which makes verification hard for the few books without any URLs, but overall, this is clearly supported by reliable sources (AGFing the book references as not hoaxes just badly formatted, and anyway, this one is rescuable: ). It should be published ASAP and just tagged as dead end since the submitter forgot to add hyperlinks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Tales from the Green Hills declined by User:Sulfurboy is similar to 4 but nonetheless would pass AfD. No inline references is a problem, but it lists a general reference to a Korean encyclopedia which has an entry on this topic . This satisfied GNG, and the source is obviously reliable, so while the article should be tagged with morefootnotes it should be published, not declined. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Sohn Won-pyung declined by User:SportingFlyer due to "not meeting Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations." That was true back then, now the draft has been formatted correctly thanks to User:DGG and User:Vahurzpu. Everything now seems properly referenced and the refs are reliable. Why is this still in the draft space? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Seong Mi-jeong declined by User:Theroadislong due to failing RS and GNG. The article has partial footnotes and some unreferenced content warrants a peacock. They are reasonably well formatted, and seem to be reliable (Korean newspapers and books). I don't see good discussion of awards and reception, and frankly I think that as written the article has borderline notability. However, the claim of unreliable sources is plainly wrong. As for whether this would survive AFD or not, well, as I said, this seems borderline. I can't fault the reviewer for declining it on the grounds of notability, but I don't understand why the references were judged unreliable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Seo Joon-hwan declined by User:Theroadislong due to not having footnotes, which seems to me like a totally wrong reason. We have nofootnotes for that. What is even worse is that the article CLEARY has footnotes, 13 at that, and they are clearly formatted, maybe not ideally, some are references and some are more like notes, but overall, there article seems based on some reliable sources which are properly linked in footnotes. That said, if the reviewer failed this due to GNG I would agree, as the article does not seem to explain how the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR. Only the first refs seems to be about the subject, but it is unlinked, and I failed to verify it exits (the odds are it does, but it is in Korean, and the title and author's names were translated, which makes finding the original next to impossible unless someone speaks fluent Korean and gets lucky with search terms). On a side note, I noticed that this entire article has been republished here, considering formatting, it seems like it was copied from Wikipedia and not the other way around... Anyway, I don't think this draft should have been published due to failing GNG BUT I find the decline reason wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Park Cheong-ho declined by User:Cerebellum due to being an ad, which is not the best rationale to use here. I read the article and I don't see obvious WP:PEACOCK or promotional language. The reviewer should cite specific examples in their decline comment, otherwise this is too subjective of a criteria. Other than that, the subject seems to have won two awards, but I have no clue if they are major (they are unlinked and one is unreferenced). The subject is probably notable subject to several in-depth academic articles, but as too often here, the references seem to be badly formatted - they don't have any URLs AND seem to be translations from Korean, meaning that google and google scholar search fail to produce links. I can't even verify that there is a journal called  Literature and Society, I guess even the name is in Korean and translated into an English title unused outside Wikipedia :( As such, whether to accept this article or not is based on whether we AGF that those sources exist and this is not a hoax. I hoped that a corresponding Korean Wikipedia article would help, but the Korean name of the subject is not given in the lead, sigh. It seems to be 박찬호, but ko:박찬호 is about Chan Ho Park. Frankly, I'd user user-draftify it (not delete it) and tell the author to add working links to references to prove this is not a hoax. This is likely a notable writer, but accepting articles with such unverifable references invites submission of hoaxes too... :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is 박청호, not 박찬호, though he doesn't have a kowiki or namuwiki article either way. The sources referenced are:
 * Kang 1995: This is <추억과 상징의 시, 그 희망 없음의 세계-유하․박청호론>, in 『문학과사회』 32호. DBPIA link.
 * Kim 1996: This is <환멸ㆍ억압ㆍ복수로서의 글쓰기 - 박청호론>, in 『문학과사회』 35호. DBPIA link.
 * U 1996: This is <‘장난스러운 절망’과 ‘절망적인 장난’ 사이에서 - 박청호 읽기>, in 『문학과사회』 35호. DBPIA link.
 * Jang 1996: This is <분화해가는 환멸의 담론들 - 박청호의 소설에 대하여>, in 『문학과사회』 35호. DBPIA link.
 * Son 1999: This is <글쓰기가 감추고 드러내는 인간의 욕망에 대한 소설적 탐구의 세 가지 사례 고찰 - 조경란 『가족의 기원』, 박청호『소년 소녀를 만나다』, 송경아『테러리스트』>, which I can't find the original journal for but is included in 손정수's 2002 anthology 『미와 이데올로기』.
 * Seo 2000: Couldn't find this easily, but there is a literary critic by this name.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * (Continuing after a short break). Draft:Min Gyeong-hyeon. Declined by User:Bkissin de to tone (essay), lack of RS and NPVO issues. Uh. I rad the article. It seems to be written, to me, in an encyclopedic tone, with correct structue. I don't see an serious issues with neutrality, maybe a bit of peacock-phrasing in the 'crticial reception' ("uniqueness of his writings", lack of attributoion for sentences - only end of paragraph one), but it is hardly serious. The references are badly formatte (as in many cases here, they are Korean works whose titles and other elements have been translated, making verificaiton hard where no ISBN/URL/etc. are present). Now, the references need better formatting, and the subject's notability is borderline (particulalry as the main reference used for the claim of significant reception is badly formatted and hard to verify). In fact, I would decline this myself due to poor reference style and insufficient notability, but I take an issue with the decline n the groinds of tone/RS/NPOV - none of those seem like the factual issues found here, suggesting tha the reviewer did not read the article, or does not understand the cited policies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Memilggot pil muryeop (메밀꽃 필 무렵, When the Buckwheat Flowers Bloom) declined by User:WikiAviator due to non-RS sources. Well, some sources are not RS indeed, some seem ok, the main problem here is that much of the text has not footnotes, and worse, notability for this short story is unclear. The text makes assertions that the story is significant, but those assertions have unclear/no/unreliable references. That said, the story is likely notable as it inspired at least one movie, television series and other works; I found some sources like "When the Buckwheat Flowers Bloom is based on the outstanding short novel by Yi Hyo - sok published in 1936" or "author of the modern classic When the Buckwheat Flowers Bloom was born", hen the Buckwheat Flowers Bloom... are counted as masterful works of this genre, and there is evidence of this story being discussed in Korean scholarly works: . Now, as far as drafts review go, I can't blame the author for declining this - it is not very well written, needs more references, needs better references, etc. But the subject is notable, just the current execution is lacking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Back at it after another break, this time looking at Draft:Kim Youn Bae, declined by User:User:KartikeyaS343 as 'too much of an advert', which seems to be a generic template decline. The article does suffer from a bit of peacockish issues and needs some grammar fixes, but doesn't strike me as an ad. The relevant policy is GNG - is the subject notable or not? If they are, than this article is in line with an average article about an artist or writer. Neither the Korean Wikipedia nor Namu Wiki have an article about the subject. The references used seem to be from the publisher, with a bit or newspaper coverage but the latter appears minor. I see only one sentence that calls him "acclaimed", but again, it seems to be based on the publisher website. I did not locate any better sources, through some may exist in Korean, and my Korean skills are very rudimentary. Anyway, right now I conclude this should be declined, as a bio of a GNG-failing subject is an advertisement. I'd just recomment that the reviewer should make it clear that it is notability which is the primary issue here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kim Sa-i (Poet) declined by User:AaqibAnjum due to tone and layout issues. Let's see. ... Another bogus decline, another example that way too many AfC reviewers don't seem to be competent enough for this task. Neither the tone nor the layout seems out of order here. Sure, the language is not up to FA standards, and there are minor issues with formatting (lakc of bullet points in list, etc.), and few sentences need inline referencing, but those are minor issues. The main issue, yet again ignored by the reviewer, is whether the subject is notable, and this is unclear. None of the sources cited seems to be in-depth about her, outside a single interview, and I am not seeing anything better - but my Korean skills are limited. I don't think she has an article on Korean Wikipedia or namu wiki. So I am not recommending this for publication, but at the same time, the reason for declining it is 100% wrong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Kim Myung-su was never submitted for a review, nor reviewed. Seems notable (entry in a Korean encyclopedia), so I c/e-ed it and published it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kim Kyoungin Here I concur with User:Sulfurboy. Notability is a problem, although there is supposedly one academic article about her work, but I couldn't verify it really exists (it probably does, but can't take it for granted, and it's the author's fault for not linking it and translating the title without providing the original title in Hangul). TOOSOON, but I suggest keeping it and reviewing in a decade or so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft:Hong Changsoo This got deleted and I had to ask for undeletion, sigh. See comment on talk. Notable author that is discussed in Korean scholarly works. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kim Jun Tae Published, see comments on talk. At least 3 newspaper articles about him, claims of several literary awards, 30+ books, article on Korean Wikipedia. Almost certainly passes NCREATIVE. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kim Joong-sik Declined as an advertisement, but is not written like one, language-wise. And it meets NBIO, if borderline. Several newspapers profiled him after his second book was published:, . His work also got some coverage in Korean literary journals/magazines, at least if I can trust Google translate here: , , . Can't figure out how to access those works or how to judge their reliability, but anyway, if someone thinks the sources are too poor this deserves and AfD. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kim Eon Hee Sigh. Found academic sources with query 김언희 poetry . Google Translate of titles A Psychoanalytic Study on Kim Eon-hee 's Poetry, A Study on the Decategorization Process of Korean Women's Poetry in the 1990s- Focusing on the Poems of Hee- Duk Na and Eon- Hee Kim- or Changes in the Exploration of Existence in Modern Korean Poetry: Focusing on the subject and type analysis of the poems of Chun-Soo Kim, Nam-Su Park, Jong-Sam Kim, Hyung-Do Ki, Seung-Ho Choi, Ji-Woo Hwang, Ha Ha, Seong-Ho Ham, and Eon-Hee Kim. Together with the newspaper coverage cited it shows the subject is notable, but the reviewer, User:Waggie, didn't do proper research. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Kim Chong Kwang was declined by User:MurielMary for not meeting "Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations" despite having 21 footnotes (granted, badly formatted). So the decline reason is totally bogus and like most examples illustrated above shows that the draft review system is a failure, with articles being reviewed by people not familiar with basic policies and declining them with faulty rationales. The subject has a corresponding article on Korean Wikipedia and some news coverage, although I wasn't able to locate academic coverage outside few mentions in passing. This should have been accepted, perhaps tagged with notability. Sigh. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:45, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Choe Dooseok declined by User:I dream of horses due to 'non-neutral language'. I have read the article and I don't see any major problems, few sentences can use tweaking but nothing seems particularly bad, and all assessment seems attributed or referenced. The subject is notable, has article on Korean Wikipedia and has been included in the Dictionary of Modern Korean Literature . Why was this declined? Pure subjectivity. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Draft:Jo Yongho Subject won awards, was written about in Korean mainstream media, yet this was declined because the reviewer didn't like one perfectly acceptable sentence. I am at a loss of words regarding the near total lack of competence in the draft reviewers. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

General discussion

 * Agreed. On a cursory glance, every single one of the rejected drafts easily passes notability guidelines. They are admittedly poorly researched and in need of copyediting, but this can and will be fixed in time. Rejecting them out of hand is not doing anything to help WP:SYSTEMICBIAS.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have already endorsed and published the Draft:Inhyeon wanghu jeon (仁顯王后傳, Story of Queen Inhyeon) as Inhyeon wanghu jeon. I have the impression that the whole story is only newbie's bashing. User:GeneralPoxter, what a great general, killing the soldiers ! Many of these drafts where even proposed for speedy deletion. Indeed, this Draft system is resulting into a net loss of a lot of valuable content. Pldx1 (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that the article when I reviewed it was submitted with only a single source. No article of that length entirely dependent on a single source could be considered reliably sourced by current standards. All because the content is considered "valuable" does not warrant it being on Wikipedia. Articles must be amply supported by sources to show that it is actually valuable. It should be clear that the burden and responsibility of ensuring that valuable sources reach the mainspace falls largely on article writers to adequately cite sources. GeneralPoxter (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm currently on break from wiki as my field of work is on the frontline of dealing with the COVID pandemic, but I thought I'd quickly chime in. First and most importantly, there is a distinct difference between an article being rejected and an article being declined. I didn't go down the list, but I noted that the article I was referenced about someone said I "rejected" it when I in fact declined it. The difference being a decline allows for an editor to make the appropriate changes and resubmit, whereas a rejection is a final and done in instances in which there is no hope in establishing notability or in some other way fails what Wikipedia is.


 * There also seems to be a misunderstanding of why an article may be declined. We do not approve of every article if it is determined to be notable. Our standard is "likely to pass an AfD". That standard is very open to interpretation, some believe that means any article that is likely notable should be approved. Others, myself included, take a WP:BUILDER approach and believe that it should be able to likely pass an AfD in its current state. I imagine from the context of the comments that most of these would require WP:HEY or some level of someone else doing work to right the ship. This is problematic because, after approval, many of these articles will not be seen by another editor for months, years, possibly ever. As such, AfC in some capacity serves as a last hope of getting an article to a bare minimum level of acceptance before it's tossed into the wild. If I'm needed for additional comment, be sure to ping me, because like I said I'm basically inactive for right now. As to the at times flippant and negative comments towards AfC, I would encourage any editor to volunteer their time in this incredibly very overworked process. Cheers Sulfurboy (talk) 05:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am very active at AfD I am 100% that out of the 6 articles I've reviewed so far, 5 would be likely uncontested (and possibly speedy) keeps if nominated, and only one is a maybe, but by no means a speedy. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * notified me, because I have been accepting, or at least postponing the deletion, of such articles. At first when I encountered them, I didn't: they were not written in our usual style, they were over-heavy on plot, the references were relatively scant and totally unfamiliar. But as I kept seeing them, I realized I was applying overly restrictive standards. The style could be fixed. The contributors seem to have been learning to shorten the section on plot, and increase the discussion of reception. Gradually they have been adding more references. I intendto check the ones mentioned above, and it is highly likely that I shall accept many of them.
 * I don't think I agree with some of what  has said above.  I have seen over time many of his declined articles that I think should be accepted, and if I think they will pass AfD I have been accepting them, or if I think they are fixable trying to fix at least a little and then accepting, or if I cannot immediately fix  or if the decline reason is invalid,  at the least postponing the deletion. (Though most of the ones I have disagreed with him about are ones that he declined months ago, and  I  definitely do agree with most of the declines that he did in the last few weeks of intensive work here.)  I think that he is in fact working closer to the standard  used by most other reviewers than he used to.  I had intended to postpone a general discussion with him on this until he had the time to engage in it, but I'll give the basics of it now. When he wants, we can have the discussion on the proper place,  the AfC talk page. If in the mean time I accept articles that he thinks I shouldn't, there's afd, either now or whenever he has the time. If this discussion had not arisen, I would not have even mentioned the issue now.
 * I do not know Korean. The standard for foreign language references has always been one of our basic prinicples: Assume good faith. If someone says that a reference exists, we do not say they are a liar unless it is truly impossible to verify at all. If a reference is malformed, someone will fix it--I've perpetrated over the years many incomplete references working on the basis of what I have, and they do get fixed, just as I have fixed probably thousands entered by other people, in this hopefully cooperative enterprise. Cultural bias does exist--we will always have relatively weak coverage from some geographies, but we should try to minimize the effect--not by formal rules, for this is a fluid situation which depends as much of who comes here. and how hard people work, but by a relatively relaxed interpretation. How far to relax it can be a valid matter of disagreement, which is what consensus processes are there to decide, not each one of us individually and independently.
 * The one matter agreed above, is the standard for accepting AFC: that it will probably pass AfD. It was decided many years ago when we first had AfC, that this did not mean a bare 50%. Most reviewers then used somewhere between 60% and 90%; I think it has stabilized at  somewhere like an 70%-80% chance of passing, and at least 80% of accepted afcs that are challenged do in fact pass AfD, which meansthe process works as it is intended to.  (I use a standard of 80%, but in fact fewer than 5% of what I've passed has ever been deleted or even merged.) It's argued above that the standard means it would pass as is, but that's not the way afd works: articles often get improved during afd, and this seems to apply particularly to ones that had been drafts. Whether something will get approved, means whether it will be approved at the end of the discussion, just as in all other consensus decisions--it's the final consensus that counts.  Myself, if I list something for AfD, and it gets improved and kept, I do not regard it as a mistake of mine--I regard it as a success. The deletion process exists to get acceptable articles into WP as much as to keep unacceptable ones out.
 * We certain do accept articles on the basis of a single reference if it is good enough. An entry in a national encyclopedia or major subject encyclopedia has always been regarded a fully sufficient for an article--we consider them authoritative. A bio with a bare but good reference that someone has a seat in a legislature or has won a major prize is acceptable also. It's not ideal--it counts as a very low quality stub and I will always try to find at least something additional. (obvious, a bio with only a first party reference or a newspaper mention is another matter entirely, and I think none of us would accept it.)  Bios with a verifiable fact showing notability but no reference for personal details can still be accepted--but the practice is generally to stubbify them to what can be referenced.
 * I do not accept every article if i think it notable. That's not the standard. Thes tandard is whether the community will think it notable. That means having some convincing amount of content and references, and to that extent I do agree with what Sulfurboy said. I will sometimes even decline for style, if the style is so utterly terrible that people who look at it will think rightly or wrongly that it shouldn't be accepted into our encyclopedia. I think it is possible for reviewers to work to a common, but not identical, standard. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And, Piotrus, something where you might be particularly helpful--we are currently having similar problems with articles of Serbian and other Balkan area politicians and writers.   DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can try to help with the Balkan ones, but for now I am busy reviewing the Korean ones listed above. And I would like to ask: when will the ones I reviewed above and said they are acceptable be published? Can I publish them myself or do we need some sort of discussion? And if I can publish them, is there a good script for that? I use some script but it does a good job of hiding the 'accept and publish' button... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have to sign up for AFCH, if you haven't, but I'll add you. The instructions, unfortunately, are a little complicated. ("complicated" is the wrong word, I meant "bizarre". However, I was planning to add them tomorrow, It's usually best to have a second person if there's likely to be a dispute, so I'll make a point of linking to your statement also.  DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I have this script (well, it calls itself beta in the drop down menu), but it is not user friendly. I understand comment, I left one recently somewhere, but there is no publish/accept button, just submit (submit what? Where?). Then there is a third button "Clean submission Mark as under review". Bizarre, yes. There is a reason in my published academic reviews on teachign with Wikiepdia I tell readers "use sandbox and stay the hell away from the super complex and super backlogged draft system", which, sorry, I believe should be pulled down. Good intentions, I understand, but it is too buggy /unfriendly -> not working. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * what you have to do is first submit it, and let the macro add the necessary headings for accept/decline, and then accept it as a separate operation. The options to accept or decline only show up when the article is submitted. But it's generally better if one person nominates and leaves it for another to accept--that part of the functionality is a deliberate feature,  but if I think it's clear enough I will do both, especially if the article has been neglected.  DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the topic of the single encylopedia entry being sufficient, I agree with you, but I don't think it actually works that way in practice given how these articles were evaluated. Look at the chart I compiled below. Most articles about a topic covered in a major encylopedia were in fact declined. And the only editors who approved articles in any significant number were you and User:Missvain (who, by the way, has come out of this fiasco looking very good!) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, here is a table of all of the articles that I believe are associated with this project, whether accepted, declined, or never submitted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, I also just posted about this issue at WP:VPP because I think the broader community needs to see how AFC is handling contributions like this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have succeeded in showing that some AfC reviewers work too rapidly, and others are incompetent. The AfC messages are inadequate, and a number of otherwise good  know this, and add their own  prewritten summary, without considering whether it actually meets the situation.  It's always a temptation when overworked, to deal with things very briefly, and only give real explanations when someone complains. The reviewers we need to educate or remove first are the ones who don't even give personalized explanation when asked for. Screening drafts is a teaching process, and I'm sure everyone here has encountered enough poor teaching that they should know not to imitate it.
 * In judging the proportion of bad reviews, we'd need real statistics, but the classification would be personal. I am, in a complementary project to yours', screening all 5+ moth declined or never-submitted articles within my competence (everything but sports or popular culture). There are about 100 a day; I look at 50. Of these, about 5 can be rescued, though most of them need a little work first. 10% articles lost is too high a proportion, but not hopelessly high. Our overall quality of screening now isn't good, but compare it with the sort of stuff we accepted 10 or 12 years ago. (It's much harder to look at what we didn't accept but should have accepted back then, but my impression at the time was that it was about 15 to 20%. ).  DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

All, let's take this discussion over to WT:AFC. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Some months later (Feb. 2021)
Dear User:Piotrus. Thanks for your three posts of this months. Concerning Kim Joong-sik, this article has been declined 2020‎-02-04 by User:Praxidicae as "Submission reads like an advertisement (AFCH 0.9.1)" and proposed for speedy deletion 2020-08-04 by User:UnitedStatesian. In the Real World, this is called a strong rejection. Thereafter or not, it has been published at Digital Library of Korean Literature, both in Korean and in English. This page says 'last modified 2020-03-13', while the English text is --Like a Camel Crossing the Ocean-- in identical form as the former draft. This should appear somewhere in front of the reader. Pldx1 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And the same occurs with Kim Jun Tae Pldx1 (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And guess what happens with Hong Changsoo ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure what are you asking for, exactly, although this was discussed before (I just can't remember which talk page). The articles were created as a batch, submitted to Wikipedia by a drive-by submitter (several accounts all of which went dormant), and clearly, the article(s) were also submitted (and published) on this Korean website https://library.ltikorea.or.kr/ . <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Piotrus. Your are right, I am not sure of what should be asked for! May be a mention, in the "See Also" sections, that these articles are also published, in identical form, in English and in Korean, at LTIK. Pldx1 (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , We don't usually acknowledge the existence of mirrors, particularly when they don't acknowledge our free licensing. We could link to them in the 'external link' section, but I am not sure how to describe it. "A mirror of this article on Website X", is', again, not a recommended practice AFAIK (since most mirrors are low-quality Wikipedia+ads clickbait sites). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)