User talk:PantheonRadiance/Archive 1

Archive 1

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alpharad (YouTuber) has been accepted

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Chuggaaconroy

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)

@Devonian Wombat: Okay, thanks. Just went ahead and submitted it, once again I really appreciated your feedback. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:07, 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.

PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chuggaaconroy (July 29)

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:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HighKing⁺⁺ 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TeamFourStar has been accepted

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Saw your edit summary here - congrats on 200 edits! Here's some strawberries to boost your energy for 200 more. — Bilorv (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@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. 😊 PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No worries, hope you enjoyed your time off. — Bilorv (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Vinesauce

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)

Done. Jay (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Jay. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

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 Special Barnstar
		For doing the stinky job of cleaning up Keemstar. Mako001 (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@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)

New message from Passengerpigeon

Hello, PantheonRadiance. You have new messages at Passengerpigeon's talk page.
Message added 13:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Maximilian Dood

Hello! Your submission of Maximilian Dood at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Troom Troom" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Troom Troom. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 3#Troom Troom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Maximilian Dood

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. Capcom 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

New message from IAmChaos

Hello, PantheonRadiance. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories.
Message added 21:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I couldnt get the ping to send, so I'll leave a TB template here. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 21:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@IAmChaos: Thanks for the ping. I just sent a request for page protection. As a side question, do you perhaps have the ability to remove salts? PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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--IAmChaos 22:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks anyways. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Slowbeef has been accepted

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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Numberguy6 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Northernlion

Hey there,

first of all, thanks for the help on the draft! I aprreciate it :)

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.

Either way, have a nice day! Mika Müller-Popkes (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mika Müller-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.

Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey @PantheonRadiance,

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.

So yeah, thanks a lot again and I hope you have a wonderful day or night as well! Mika Müller-Popkes (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mika Müller-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. :) 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 now :) Mika Müller-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)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vinesauce has been accepted

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 20% of accepted submissions — 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Living Tombstone has been accepted

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 20% of accepted submissions — 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)