Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
~8 weeks
2,610 pending submissions
(refresh)
Shortcut


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of September 25, 2025


Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback

[edit]

Every time an article is accepted, the user gets a template box telling them that their draft has been created to an article. In that box (which changed color a few weeks ago, I just realized), we ask the user for their feedback, which sends them here.

Do we actually make use of this feedback? It's only shown to people who have gotten their work accepted, so their feedback is pretty grateful and positive - not representative of the whole userbase. But also even then, there's constant criticism of not-detailed-enough article feedback from us reviewers, which I don't think has been properly addressed on this talk page. Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, didn't even know it existed. Certainly doesn't seem all that useful to me, but maybe some reviewers who are actually aware of it might disagree? CoconutOctopus talk 16:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to CoconutOctopus, I also had no idea this page really existed. I see the acceptance template a lot but somehow just.. glossed over the feedback page. I think it could potentially be valuable to get feedback from users who got their articles declined as well as accepted, but I worry most of the "feedback" would simply be "Why was my article declined" or some AI response about how their article has been reviewed for "notability and verifiability". I do think it's something we should consider, though. Rambley (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing links to the feedback page from the template, and marking the feedback page historical. If nobody is reading the feedback page, then it is just busy work, and that is not ideal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends on what those people who are reading the feedback are doing; pageviews shows an average (before the last couple of days) of ~14 reads/day, which isn't really much. Clearly the feedback provide there (good or bad) isn't percolating to this board where more than a dozen people will see it.
Personally speaking, I have (almost) every AFC-related page on my watchlist; this is one of the few I do not, because I did not find any use to it and it was not something I felt I needed to keep an eye on. That being said, I also don't have AFCHD on my watchlist for similar reasons, so I will support the majority but if folk do want to keep it I'm not going to advocate against that position (in other words count me as a silent supporter for marking historical). Primefac (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth keeping for a while after the request for WP:THREE is implemented just to see if we get any feedback about it. S0091 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-hashing this discussion (User:CoconutOctopus, User:Rambley, User:Novem_Linguae, User:Primefac, User:S0091). Can we just go ahead and mark it as historical, and remove the link to it from the template box? I don't think it serves us any use nowadays, and as mentioned, it's "just busy work". Cheers :-). LR.127 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that, since having editors spend a bunch of time writing feedback that no one reads is not efficient, but I don't think we achieved a consensus for that in the above discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support removing this. Given the feedback only goes to those who have drafts accepted a quick skim shows most of it seems to be "yeah it's fine I guess" or "it's good" and doesn't really tell us anything useful. CoconutOctopus talk 05:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. qcne (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I have changed the wording and will mark the feedback page historic in the next couple of days (just since there are a bazillion links to it from the template and it is not worth changing all of those); I'll probably have to turn it into a redirect since they're template-generated links, but I'll see what I can do. Primefac (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on deleting this paragraph instead of changing the feedback location to WT:AFC? I wonder if having WT:AFC be the feedback location could lead to the same sort of feedback messages that we had quarantined at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback being posted here instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, removed. Primefac (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

[edit]
Question asked, question answered. If someone really wants me to clean this up, I suppose we can continue the discussion. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The template link has been deleted and the page has now been marked as historical, but we have cleanup issues on aisle "this template was substituted", namely the 14000 links to it that came from previous acceptances (via the feedback template). All of these links, by the way, are direct editing links, so turning /feedback into a redirect won't do anything to mitigate that. We can either leave things as they are (and just delete/revert feedback on that page as we get it), or I can put in a bot request to go through and remove those 14k links. I'd like to get a solid consensus on this before doing the latter, as it does count as a valid cleanup task but some people get tetchy about mass-editing user talk pages. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought cleanup was a good idea but I was just looking at the usages to see the value on removing and found a lot of examples like User talk:Mjcremasco where it is from years ago (2011) and they have not been active since, however they may still get an email if a bot removes. Unless there is a way for a clean up bot to suppress notifications that I have not heard about I don't think that is a good use. Unless it could be seen and maybe trying to encourage editors to come back by reminding them of us. If we did a clean up it should probably be restricted to recent additions only and/or on pages that have had another edit in the last x weeks. KylieTastic (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on team "leave things as they are", mostly because no one really used the feedback page anyways! The odd request here and there will be very rare. LR.127 (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record that's kind of where I'm standing, but I wanted to throw it out there just to "close the book" so to speak on this issue if doing nothing is the preferred option. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing nothing would be a good option here. We don't even need to revert new feedback, which is a bit WP:BITEy (someone took the time to write feedback, then would get a revert ping). We can just let the feedback keep doing what it was doing before: going to a page that no one reads. Eventually feedback will drop to zero due to lack of new accept templates containing the link. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template at bottom

[edit]

Seen quite a few drafts lately where the AfC template is at the end/bottom of the draft. Is this another AI 'feature', do you reckon? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This predates AI, and likely has to do with some sort of WP:PRELOAD link being used somewhere. Apparently preloading supports appending but not prepending, so it ends up at the bottom. If you can find the link that does this, feel free to post the page containing it, as I'd like to get it included in my survey of ways to create a draft (discussed above in #Draft creation pipelines).
There's a chance that this preload method was removed awhile ago, and that AI is coincidentally bringing it back.
Anyway, feel free to post links to example drafts so we can take a closer look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One like that which I just reviewed was Draft:Advantage Club, but having looked at its history, I now see that the author inserted the template at the bottom: Special:Diff/1302259775. I guess we rather want one where it was placed there when the draft was first created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not AI, it's just old settings. As far as I am aware we got rid of any "click here to <put the submit template at the bottom>" links, but I also feel like we have a backup preload that still does that if the script doesn't work. I wouldn't worry about it (either finding, fixing, or replacing it); AFCH will move it to the proper location during either cleaning or reviewing. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with terminology, redux

[edit]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 83#Declined vs rejected at AfC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Terminology and Patience

[edit]

I will repeat what I said at the Village Pump.

Wikipedia, like many activities, has terminology that is used in specialized ways. Any scientific activity has its own vocabulary, including many words that are in everyday use, but have very precise meanings when used by scientists. A lay person may use the words 'force', 'energy', and 'power' interchangeably. A scientist or engineer never will, because 'force', 'energy', and 'power', while related, have different units of measurement. However, an engineer, in discussing an electric bill with a lay person, will know that the issue is how much energy was used and is being billed. If someone has a question about how much power they are being billed for, the answer is not to explain that power is energy per unit time, but to answer how much energy they are being billed for. That is, the specialized person should be able to discuss without making an issue about the correctness of terminology.

The problem that I see is not so much that the difference between decline and rejection is not understood or is not clear. The problem is that some reviewers make an unnecessary issue about correcting the terminology. If an author asks, "Why was my draft rejected?", saying that it was not rejected, but declined, is answering the wrong question. The right answer is to say: "Your draft was declined because you did not show that the band meets any of the musical notability criteria," or, "Your draft was declined because your sources are not reliable sources, or, "Your draft was rejected because it appears to be a hoax." That is, answer the question that the person would answer if they knew the terminology.

I don't think that changing the terminology is an answer. Answering the intended question politely but precisely is the answer. Tell why the draft was declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, terminology correction is not a great way to open a reply, it would be better to place it at the end of the reply if at all. I also like the idea of changing "declined" for "not accepted", its a simple but claryfing change. NeoGaze (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably try to keep our replies centralized over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 83#Declined vs rejected at AfC. It wouldn't be good for our replies to be excluded from the consensus-building process going on over there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the reply tool

[edit]

If anyone is if having issues with the reply tool, please post a note at WP:VPT#Reply working erratically. I thought it was just me but at least a few editors are experiencing the same issue. S0091 (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is where I get to smugly state that I don't use the reply tool, and so glitches like this don't affect me? Primefac (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Context: mw:DiscussionTools, not a user script such as WP:Convenient Discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely LLM-generated drafts: A pattern

[edit]

In light of the recent RFC on a new CSD for unreviewed, AI-generated submissions, I have an issue I wanted to bring up. In the past 36 hours I've declined or rejected three separate obviously LLM-written drafts (here, here, and here), all by new editors (profiles created in past two months, fewer than 60 edits and in one case only 3 edits). All of these draft articles seemed to follow the same pattern: 1) an obscure topic is picked, 2) a few genuine articles/books with the topic in the title are chosen as references, 3) a clearly AI-generated summary of each reference is copy-pasted in as an independent section, sourced only to that reference. The result is a low-effort slop article sourced to actual (not hallucinated) references...though in one case the bibliographic details were hallucinated.

Is there something coordinated going on here? I have a theory, but since I have no direct evidence I don't want to go paranoid and start spouting it here. I made a cursory YouTube search to see if there are any tutorials on creating articles this way and I couldn't find any, but I didn't check other platforms. Has anyone else reviewed draft articles like this on AfC recently? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your description sounds a lot like "class project". Having looked at the three, I don't see any thematic connection so I don't think that's likely in this case, but usually when weird stuff is happening, that's the reason. What's your crackpot theory? -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A school project makes more sense. I was thinking--and yes, it's crackpotty--there might be a trend of using AI for something similar to like-farming on Facebook. Someone creates a WP account, gets an LLM to create a bunch of articles or make low-stakes edits on niche topics, and then once the accout has credibility or extended-confirmed status it's sold to someone with an agenda who wants to insert junk on sensitive topics articles, or create nonsense articles without going through AfC.
If that's actually what's going on, it's a stupid scheme, because of course you don't need to create articles to become extended-protected, and it's not as if having lots of edits gives you free reign to post garbage. But Wikipedia-haters mostly don't understand how Wikipedia works, and the "edit-farmers" wouldn't care since they'd simply pocket the money and run.
Probably this isn't what's happening. But it's a topic I think about a lot because we're just about the last platform where bad-faith users haven't driven out good, and there are a lot of powerful people (and their general-public suckups) who really hate that and want to see it change. And those people tend to overlap with the people who think AI is the most fantastic thing that has ever happened. But that's just an idea, I should probably go take my medication. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are easier ways to game EC. But if you slightly expand the objective to creating seemingly-legitimate user accounts with a history of seemingly-successful article creation, specifically, I can think of all sorts of ways in which such accounts could be abused. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think that's all that "crackpot". I think it's even possible for there to be a misguided-but-in-good-faith version of that, namely that people are trying to "become content creators" and are trying to "get their foot in the door". I've dealt with some people who fall afoul of our policies and say they're leaving for quora or reddit for basically this reason. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Drafts on One Person

[edit]

I am mostly asking, after the fact, whether what I did in this specific case was reasonable. Sometimes we see two drafts on the same person by two people. That is what I encountered with a sandbox draft article on Eamon Evans. I tried to move it to Draft:Eamon Evans, and was told that there already was a page there. In my opinion, the sandbox draft is better than the version in draft space. I want to know whether what I did was reasonable, which was to move the original draft to Draft:Eamon Evans (2), and then move the sandbox to Draft:Eamon Evans. I've already done that.

Does anyone have any general advice about ways to deal with having two drafts on the same subject (usually same person)? Does anyone also have any general comments about how to deal with the situation where a draft is submitted but there is already an article by a different author? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly acceptable, and I would guess this is how most of us do it, especially when the two drafts have been written by two different editors. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to consider when you get this is when they were written and if one is probably abandoned.
In this case two new accounts within 2 weeks of each other one only to write about Mr Evans and the other only two other edits before doing the same shouts UPE or at least some sort of COI, unless the subject has posted somewhere about not having a Wikipedia article and they are just fans. I find it odd to classify Draft:Eamon Evans as better as it appears to be LLM slop to me (puff, lists and LLM ref format style). So I would have just declined (bio+ai) and left in the sandbox, but in general yes your approach is fine. KylieTastic (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I usually WP:BLAR the less good draft to the more good draft. It's not good to have two of the same page because it results in duplicate work for both draft author and reviewer. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to respond to user moving unsubmitted or declined draft to mainspace?

[edit]

I have seen this several times lately, most recently at Epixode. First it was moved to draftspace by Onel5969 for good cause (UTP notification here), and then moved right back to mainspace by the creator without any significant improvement, and piles of problems still remaining. (I have since tried to clean up broken formatting, bareurls/poor citations, style problems, and tag issues, but the most serious problems in the article are still there.) Imho this article is not ready for mainspace, but it seems I can't move it back to Draft per WP:DRAFTNO #7, so what options are there?

The topic is likely notable (he has been nominated for a major award that seems legit, although he didn't win), but the sourcing is in poor shape, and there are other issues including a possible COI. What's the right response, here? (The other case is more egregious, because a user moved it to mainspace right after its second Afc decline; will have to find that one, but same question applies.) But I am more concerned about the general case, than either of these examples; namely: if a user can simply move a draft to mainspace whenever they wish, that seems like a subversion of the entire point behind Afc, and I don't know what's to prevent that (other than not being autoconfirmed yet – a very low bar). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot At the end of the day AfC is 100% optional and people don’t have to use it if they don’t want to. The only thing to do now is either add maintenance tags or just fix it. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 03:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AfD. Draftspace and AfC is optional. And even for WP:COI, where we say AfC is mandatory, AfD is the place to seek enforcement, for sending the page to draftspace by consensus, especially where the COI is debatable and your real issue is article quality.
If the COI problem is a behavioural problem, and the answer is warnings and escalation, that is a WP:ANI route. Keep sanctions on the user separate to what happens to the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this editor has a COI, which Onel's message indicates, then the WP:DRAFTOBJECT rule is probably relaxed, because those folks are supposed to use draftspace per WP:COI. The language says should use draftspace, which leaves room for debate though.
If you want to keep it in mainspace because it's notable and you don't want to re-draftify, but it has other problems, then WP:TNT can be a good option. You might want to watchlist the page to make sure your TNT doesn't get reverted by the author.
AFD mainly looks at notability and not so much other problems, so if it's notable, AFD may not be a good spot for it. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who responded. This has been very helpful. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socks in participants list

[edit]
Socks removed from the drawer. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems that User:Old-AgedKid and User:NiftyyyNofteeeee were found to be socks and got indeffed. Can their name be pulled from the participants list? AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 10:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - KylieTastic (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Advanced permission holders connected to UPE as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biography project tagging

[edit]

I'll start by saying I'm not an AFC reviewer, but appreciate all the good work happening here! I wanted to flag that for biograpical articles, ideally there should be |blp=no or |blp=yes added the banner shell as appropriate, so they don't get added to maintenance categories like Category:Biography articles without blp parameter. I see a good few going into that category via the AFC helper script, so would it be possible to add something to cover that? Glancing at https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/wiki/General-documentation#accept it seems to be possible to prompt for other data at least. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kj cheetham, it already does fill it in, but only if the reviewer selects the correct status. When accepting a biography there is a checkbox "Is the article a biography?" that then shows several parameters including a drop-down list that defaults to 'unknown' but can be set to 'living' or 'dead' which in turn sets the blp param. So if you see any you'll have to poke the reviewer and ask them to fill this in. The other option would be to not have the default set to force the reviewer to pick, but they could end up not selecting it's a bio at all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just on that last point, I agree that forcing would probably cause more issues. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, good to know. I also agree forcing isn't the answer. I did notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Step_4:_Accepting_a_submission includes If accepting an article about a person, please ensure you tick the biography checkbox, and select the relevant option from the living person drop-down menu. at least too. Gentle poking seems to be the way forward; it's not a massive number of cases. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participants list

[edit]

Here's a continued list of suggested changes to the participants list.

I used the Template:noping, so this shouldn't mass-ping everyone, but if it does I'm screwed. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For mainspace blocked users

[edit]

Iv been informed, that AfC can also be used for a full unblock for main space blocked users, speaks anything against add that into the introduction? The Other Karma (talk) 14:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Other Karma Referring to your unblock request? I don't think there is a need to add anything to the introduction for this.
Logically and barring any future discussions of further limitations of partial blocks, as long as you are not blocked in the project-space, draft-space, or user space, you can submit drafts for AfC reviewers to review. – robertsky (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question was derived from my unblock request, yes. Sounds logical, but wasn't obvious to me. The Other Karma (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bug?

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #408

Hi. unsure if this is the correct place for this so feel free to move it to the appropriate venue. There seems to be a glitch in the script as it has been notifying the wrong user for drafts I've submitted. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. We've had issues with the tool not following redirects for renamed users, but making up disambiguators is a new one for me. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is this piece of code which checks whether the username has changed. It seems to pick up this. So a fix would be to only check for username changes that happened after the draft has been submitted (@Novem Linguae:). Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a known issue that the code should not follow renames just any redirects - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_60#AFCH_~enwiki_bug KylieTastic (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: Can you take a look at this? --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 02:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Declined, or Not Accepted

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
By a wide margin, the status quo is preferred. Note that there were put forth some good suggestions in the discussion section about how to potentially increase the knowledge of users when they see the terminology the Project uses, so I will leave that section open for further comment. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


This question is about the terminology to be used when a draft is not accepted but may be reworked or improved and resubmitted. This action is currently referred to in the AFC Helper script and at the messages provided to the author as being Declined. There has been discussion at the Village Pump at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Declined_vs_rejected_at_AfC. Should the terminology for the three possible actions by a reviewer be:

  • A - Accepted, Declined, and Rejected? (The present options)
  • B - Accepted, Not Accepted, and Rejected? (The rough consensus at VPM)
  • C - Something else, please specify.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer with A, B, or C, and a brief optional explanation in the Survey. Discuss in the Discussion section.

Survey (decline terminology)

[edit]
  • B - Change Declined to Not Accepted in the Teahouse invite and in the template on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B – "Declined" is too similar in meaning to "Rejected", and might give an impression of definitiveness which is harsher than what "Not Accepted" gives off. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C (with "needs changes") with second choice B, per my prior rationale. Either will be an improvement over the status quo, but I still think that "not accepted" is more bitey/too similar to "rejected" than optimal, and that it's the responsibility of AfC reviewers to reject a draft without hope of acceptance to avoid giving false hope. "Needs changes" would be more likely to encourage editors to continue working on their draft. Sdkb talk 22:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • B with second choice A if no clear consensus is reached. I have checked multiple dictionaries searching for better terms, and nearly none seem acceptable either by being innappropiate (abjured, avoided, desisted, refrained) or too harsh (denied, dismissed, refused, turned down). As said in the village pump discussion, phrasing such as "needs work" or "changes needed" will easily lead editors to believe their draft may be accepted if it is "good enough", even if the topic is not notable or has any other issue editing can't save. NeoGaze (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Qcne noted in the earlier discussion, The actual AfC script has the labels "Decline (for later improvement & resubmission)" and "Reject (unsuitable topic; no option to resubmit)". The reviewer instructions and linked essay discuss the differences between them in similar terms. Perhaps it should be more formally documented, but all this gives me the impression that, if there is an issue editing can't fix, the rejection option should be used instead of the decline option. Since there is a third category of drafts where the reviewer isn't sure whether or not the issue would be fixable with further editing, perhaps we need a third option. Sdkb talk 23:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - The messaging apparent on a declined draft (and left on the user's talk page) imo is already quite clear about the potential for resubmission. I don't think 'declined' is particularly more bitey than 'not accepted' - either way the draft has been deemed not acceptable for mainspace, and there's some inherent bite in the feeling of rejection that can't be smoothed away with nomenclature. I also don't think we can prevent confusion by changing the wording - two flavors of 'no' will inevitably produce questions from people who want to understand how to delineate between the two. Zzz plant (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. One downside of terms like "not accepted" is it cannot be used as a verb easily (i.e. "I declined the draft" vs "I marked the draft as not accepted"). This means it is likely to morph into an acronym such as NA ("I NA'd the draft"), which is also unreadable to newbies, leading us back to square one.
    Also, as the main software engineer / maintainer of AFC's tools right now, this has the potential to create a lot of work for me. This kind of change could require updates to WP:AFCH, https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/, quarry queries, database reports, and templates.
    Finally, Wikipedians frequently use jargony but precise words to differentiate between wiki-concepts. For example blocked vs banned and infinite vs indefinite. There is plenty of precedent for having a word pair such as declined vs rejected.
    The amount of work being proposed here vs the size of the problem is concerning. And I also think it likely that the newly proposed terms would not be an improvement. For these reasons I oppose any changes and prefer the status quo.–Novem Linguae (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (with second choice C): I'd say leave things as they are. I know there is some confusion, but as long as we want to retain the two distinct options of 'no, for now' vs. 'no, for good', the confusion is likely to be there no matter what words we use; the relevant difference still won't be obvious to many, and will require explanation. If something must be changed, then add more contrast to the wording, eg.: Accepted – Not yet accepted – Rejected outright (italics for emphasis only here): the 'yet' implies leaving the door open for possible future acceptance, whereas the 'outright' firmly closes it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. Firstly, Not accepted doesn't necessarily mean the draft was declined, it could also be interpreted as including rejection, so it would be ambiguous. Secondly, I think Robert summarized it well at VPM: Wikipedia, like many activities, has terminology that is used in specialized ways. Any scientific activity has its own vocabulary, including many words that are in everyday use, but have very precise meanings when used by scientists. [...] the specialized person should be able to discuss without making an issue about the correctness of terminology. If someone says that their draft was rejected, even though it was declined, we can simply clarify that. Thirdly, the decline and rejection templates already clearly state whether the draft can or cannot be resubmitted. Fourthly, these terms have been used since 2018 and the project evidently hasn't exploded because of it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 08:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC) P.S. Fifthly, as Novem has said above, it would would require lots of time-consuming changes for negligible results. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - I'm sure whether the draft is either not accepted or rejected the author is still going to interpret both as "rejection", so it is probably just unnecessary to put a bunch of work on Novem because of it. I also don't think changing the terminology is any less harsher than saying "declined" because again it's still saying no and a lot of people will still be disappointed by it. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 15:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C per Sdkb. But see also LEvalyn's comment below. I continue to believe the jargon is not the issue here. -- asilvering (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A: per Kovcszaln6, and having read the lengthy thread at the VP. See comments below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • C: I wonder if there's any merit to copying the GA language of pass (accept), on hold (decline), and quick-fail (reject). It would have the side effect of making declines effectively communicate that they can be in an acceptable state if only a few corrections were to be made, and it would probably make us reviewers check in after some time, so we're less incentivized to spam template declines. Food for thought. LR.127 (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. I don't see a meaningful difference between "Declined" and "Not accepted". Neither one implies that the draft can be resubmitted any more than the other does. If anything, the "Not accepted" is a worse option because it cannot be verbed like "Declined" can be. TurboSuperA+[talk] 12:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A - keep as is, but maybe a clarification next to it what they mean.Darkm777 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (decline terminology)

[edit]

Hi Robert, can you please clarify which message as there are three: the talk page message which does not use the term "decline", the Teahouse invite and the decline on the draft. S0091 (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:S0091 - Yes. The talk page message already uses the words "Not Accepted" and would not be changed by options A (which is no change) or B (which is the rough consensus at VPM). Option B would change the Teahouse invite and the message on the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I am fine with changing the Teahouse one but not the one on the draft so would I do C? S0091 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And actually now that look at an example (User talk:207.38.139.252), the Teahouse message is the same for declines and rejects so that is another consideration. Do we want to use "not accepted" for both rejects and declines? S0091 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfC is premature, as discussion is continuing elsewhere. The false binary choice offered in A/B is between two synonyms, which does not address the problem at hand: "The use of these synonyms to mean two very different things is the cause of frequent confusion among the novice editors who are AfC's main users." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll say that I don't think it's entirely optimal that an active participant in the VPM discussion (which, at 83 comments, many participants might have assumed had the potential for an actionable outcome, not just an RFCBEFORE preamble) declared a "local" consensus there and began this, effectively making an involved close of that discussion. That said, Robert signaled his intentions and Primefac/Qcne signed on to them, so I don't find the process issue egregious. Sdkb talk 21:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Andy Mabbett, the RFC is not premature, and the discussion at VPM had reached a rough consensus that an RFC was in order. It is true that you disagree. You didn't present an alternative after there was a rough consensus for "Not Accepted". You are welcome to present an alternative within the scope of the RFC. You are also welcome to vote A if you think that Not Accepted is just as bad as Declined. Do you have an alternative, or are you just asking for someone else to come up with an answer that satisfies youj? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say "You didn't present an alternative after there was a rough consensus for 'Not Accepted'". You earlier claimed there was consensus. Which is it?
    Regardless, I presented an alternative, and made clear that your proposed solution would not address the issue, before you declared a supposed "rough consensus". I am not—no-one is—required to refute the same points repeatedly, no matter how often you repeat them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC as presented does not even clearly state the issue as identified on VPM. What a farce. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to suggest this in my vote, because it's a bit of a tangent, but part of the confusion might be because the users don't know there are two different 'no' options, and if we made that clearer, the confusion could be alleviated. Maybe we could add to the decline and rejection templates a box showing all three options, for example (exact wording and look TBD, obvs):

Your draft has been:

unchecked boxAccepted for publication – congratulations!
checked boxDeclined for now, for reasons given below. You are welcome to resubmit your draft for another review, once you have addressed these reasons.
unchecked boxRejected outright. This topic is unsuitable for publication in Wikipedia.
Might something like this make things clearer? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to putting this in the user talk templates. Seems to be a simple way to solve the problem. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1, this sounds like a good idea, although the specifics of the wording can of course be worked out. It looks like it can be implemented directly in {{AfC decline}}, etc. without needing to substantially make changes to AFCH, although I trust Novem on this one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objections to the proposed rewording (I doubt it'll hurt anything), but the more this is debated the more I think it's mis-diagnosing a problem. I'm not convinced that newbies actually need to know this jargon; few newbies encounter both a decline and a rejection, so in most cases they can pick up the vocabulary non-urgently through exposure. If someone asks "Why was my wiki rejected??" we can just say "Your article was declined because...". Because of cognitive overload, I suspect that asking them to learn the difference between "declined/not accepted" vs "rejected" can too easily come at the expense of helping them learn a concept like "reliable source". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorsing this, which is basically my position from the previous discussion. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote frame is excellent. Here are some edits to it.

A WP:AfC reviewer has:

unchecked boxAccepted your draft for publication – thank you!
checked boxDeclined your draft as not ready. See detailed reasons below. Please review these reasons, get help if required, and resubmit the draft for another review, once you have addressed these reasons.
unchecked boxRejected outright. This draft is unsuitable for Wikipedia.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we should be careful of is drafts declined for notability. Some/many aren't notable and maybe should technically be "rejected", but no one can be sure without a lot of research, and even then there may be a small chance of there being offline sources or something. So the reviewer tosses the ball back into the author's court to find more good sources. In this situation, "declined" could give false hope that the article is approvable with more work, but actually it is not. I'm not sure if there's a good fix, but just pointing this out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, care is needed.
I think that a reviewer who with confidence thinks the topic is not notable should REJECT the draft for this reason. But what if they are wrong? That’s why I suggest “A WP:AfC reviewer”, singular. They’ve made an individual judgement, not in the voice of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't provide a second choice, but my second choice would be A, and I do not feel strongly that a change is needed. I am strongly opposed to any of the other proposals, C, because the alternate proposals that I have seen, such as Needs Work or Needs Changes, can reasonably be read as implying that the draft will be accepted if the changes are made. There will be far more disconnects between users and reviewers than we currently have if we start giving authors false hope. I am aware that there are some editor, including some experienced editors, who would like the reviewer to give a clearer opinion after reviewing a draft as to whether there is likelihood of a draft being accepted. That isn't plausible. A reviewer, on seeing a draft that makes a credible claim of significance but has no sources, cannot be expected to look for sources, and so has no idea whether the sources exist. Many drafts are like that. There is no way that a reviewer can tell whether most of the drafts that they currently Decline will ever be accepted. So I strongly oppose any change in the wording that might give authors false hope. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not impressed about the stated need to replace a single verb form with another verb form. A reviewer who is asked about why they rejected a draft (when they didn't reject it) can say: "I did not accept the draft because the sources are not reliable", or "I did not accept the draft because the draft does not show that the band satisfies any of the musical notability criteria". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "Returned" is fine. I am sure that some editors will think that it does not make an adequate distinction from "Rejected", but it does satisfy the objective of having a single verb form. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Returned works as wording that absolutely has no connotations with either Rejected or Declined. O' mighty judicator of language @Pigsonthewing, does that work for you? qcne (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree returned has no "connotations with either Rejected or Declined" but as a new editor I think I would just be confused. Also unlike work submitted to a publisher etc it is not returned, as it has already been released publicly under CC-BY-SA etc. Just expect the help desks to just get "My draft was returned what does that mean?" questions as well as the same "my draft was rejected" comments and people will reply with "it was returned not rejected" instead of "it was declined not rejected". KylieTastic (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like SmokeyJoe's proposal. Darkm777 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Would we be able to ping the participants in the prior discussion? Sdkb talk 04:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sdkb - If I understand the question, pinging all of the participants in a previous discussion is not considered canvassing and is permitted. Wat that the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was less a question and more a suggestion that you or someone else may want to do it. Sdkb talk 10:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VP thread was a long read and while the OP's concern is relevant it comes a little late in the day. I haven't done any AfC reviewing in a long while but for several years I was heavily engaged with it and its improvement and and while UX (for all audiences) is always predominant in my thoughts, such a linguistic issue never crossed my mind. I don't believe it's too much of a burden to provide a short manual explanation to the creator if the default decline/rejection rationales occasionally don't suffice. What is needed however is a holistic approach to educating new users who register with the sole intention of creating an article but who won't read the PaG's before they start. This would reduce the number of inappropriate creations in the New Page Feed (which also has a feed for new drafts) and the number of articles moved to draft by Page Curation (there is a solution waiting in the wings). What data has any research provided to show that a problem really exists in the current use of AfC that needs Novem's dev time? Or, more simply: 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get updates about this project

[edit]

Hi, is there a newsletter about this project, with recently expanded or added pages, or pages that need more attention. How do I subscribe. I would like to know also what software is used to generate it and to subscribe me to it. If it is not there, then do you need such a feature? Thanks. Gryllida 10:54, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gryllida. Hey there. I don't think AFC has a newsletter. A few ways I can think of to stay connected include 1) watchlisting this talk page, 2) subscribing to the AFC backlog drive newsletter list (I can't find it right now, @Bunnypranav do you know where it is?), and/or 3) joining Discord and hanging out in the #articles-for-creation channel. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mailing list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation/Mailing list. As Novem said, that is only used for backlog drive messages, which are also not regularly done at the moment. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have, at various times, attempted some form of newsletter, whether it's mailed out to the list or just posted here as a project note; they were never by any stretch "regular" since the majority of what we do is just review drafts. I did have a semi-regular posting about review counts and other stats, but no one really seemed to find that useful so I stopped. As Novem says above, watchlisting this page is probably the best way to make sure you're keeping up with useful information. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big green button is broken

[edit]

The big green button on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog elimination drives is broken. Screenshot. Someone less tired than me right now should feel welcome to fix it :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unable to reproduce it but should be fixed. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 13:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on it. It's a little bit better, but there's still some issues I think. New screenshot. I think we could probably fix 1) the whitespace and 2) the alignment of the text inside the circle. If it's too much of a pain to fix, I think the circle could be changed out with a more standard template that renders a button or something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely fictional material – unsure if CSD applies

[edit]
Drafts have been speedy deleted sksatsuma 17:30, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a bit of an odd scenario, but a few weeks ago I had declined a couple of articles which were un-sourced and did not meet any kind of notability requirement (and because the submissions were in Spanish).

The author then removed the AfC templates which I restored, however they communicated with me on one of their talk pages that they did not want to re-submit through AfC, so I stopped restoring the deleted template to respect their decision. (Semi-related, the author did get blocked for sockpuppetry when they edited and submitted under two accounts and several IPs).

Upon further digging, it does seem like the drafts are for tournaments that the author has taken part in, either which actually exist or are between friends (note the original author shares a name, Rafael, with one of the tournament participants). I know some e-football tournaments are notable and have their own articles, but I don't believe the e-football sub-14 world cup actually exists from searching this online? My guess is that this is someone who is simply using the draftspace as a way to keep track of their eFootball tournament with their friends but I don't necessarily have evidence of this despite asking the contributor when they posted to my talk page.

What I'm asking is whether these are CSD-worthy as it feels like a borderline case. I don't think it would be considered a Hoax, or obvious vandalism which rules out G3. But I feel like if this article was in the userspace then CSD U5 would apply, although there is not a related general CSD category for this.

Drafts in question:

sksatsuma 15:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If (and I realise the user may not have quite said that) they have no intention of these ever being published in the encyclopaedia, then they would seem to be just using Wikipedia as a free webhost for their fantasy e-football stuff, and to my mind that should be as speediable in the draft namespace as it is in the user one. And yes, I get that U5 doesn't technically apply, but I'd say G3 does, esp. when this is being done on a large scale and/or by socks. That's just my take on it, though, happy to be corrected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they were just pure hoaxes based on some kid playing eFootball but them I found this so there maybe a eFootball comp. Still not English, almost certianly not notable, and the statement on Draft:Informacion de EFootball claiming it is there page and you must ask permission is clearly not going to fly. KylieTastic (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the ownership language later today!
eFootball as a platform is used for the FIFA eSports league, but after some digging I've noted on the es wikipedia that the author has specified that they organise these tournaments themselves, and that they are a person who goes under the name "eFootball Federation" which is clearly not related to FIFA themselves and likely just a fan creation.
Thanks both for your inputs, I try not to be too quick to CSD as I know the criteria are fairly specific but it looks like this would apply. sksatsuma 16:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Order of decline reasons

[edit]

Bit of a random question, but: when using two decline reasons, how is their order determined in the rendered decline notice? I just tested with a draft, choosing v and nn as the reasons, and whether I picked v + nn or nn + v, either way the result was in the order v + nn. So if it's not based on the order of selection, and it's not in alphabetic order, what is it based on? I'm basically trying to figure out if there's a way to manipulate that, so that I could force the 'prime' reason (however I happen to define that in my mind at the time!) to be on top. Or is the order hardcoded into the script and there's nothing I can do to change that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this happen? I tested it out at Template:AfC submission/declined/testcases § Parameter order and the parameters do have an order preference. Or are you saying that if you are using AFCH to select say nn + v it always shows up in the same order? In the latter case, I suspect it's because it's a drop-down selector rather than a "reason 1/reason 2" option. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the AFCH selector. And yes, that seems a plausible answer, obvious in fact (now that you mention it...). Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is probably in AFCH's code somewhere. If you figure out exactly what change you'd like made to AFCH, feel free to make a GitHub ticket about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's worth any amount of effort, really; no biggie. Idle curiosity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass (re-)submissions by IP

[edit]

I've been reverting a lot of submissions by two IPs, 213.226.119.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 88.233.233.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), both geolocating to Turkey, and both likely block evaders of Isuzu.tf. They are either resubmitting previously declined drafts without any improvement, or submitting other editors' drafts that they have had no role in, often after weeks or months of inactivity. I'm mentioning this in case they hop on to a different IP and continue the same, you may want to quickly check the draft history before wasting time and effort reviewing it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, they've continuing this from different IPs (this time starting with 84.34., again apparently located in Turkey). I've reverted some of their pointless submissions, but many had already been reviewed. This time they also created a lot of drafts where the title and content are unconnected. Just flagging this again so hopefully reviewers don't waste their valuable time reviewing crud. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pahlad Ramsurrun

[edit]

I am requesting a second set of eyes (and a second brain) to look at this draft for clearer indications that it is copyvio. I got a 54% figure from the copyvio checker, but the highlighted passages were mostly headings and other information that I thought might reasonably be copied, so I didn't see conclusive evidence of copyvio. The images are almost certainly copyvio on Commons, because they say that they are Own Work but were taken between 1949 and 1982, so I have tagged them for deletion on Commons. I declined the draft, but I thought of it as a case of Ignore All Rules in the absence of a reason to decline. The subject of the draft is almost certainly biographically notable, but Wikipedia has verifiability rules and copyright rules. Thank you for a second look. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've just removed a couple of the paragraphs that were either direct copies from the source text or very minimally rephrased. From what I can see, if there is prose that is a copyright violation (which I believe to be the case for the removed paragraphs) without any attribution or quotation, then it should be removed and revdeled. If it is more of a grey area then the reviewing admin will soon correct me I'm sure, but you can never be too careful with copyvio.
I think your decline is valid, and copyright violation that isn't significant enough to be a speedy deletion is absolutely a reason to decline a draft (and I believe is one of the templates anyway. sksatsuma 23:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for speedy review – Draft:Anna Alimani

[edit]
No. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I recently submitted Draft:Anna Alimani for review. The subject is a notable fashion model, actress, and entrepreneur with significant independent coverage in reliable sources including Harper’s Bazaar, Glamour, L’Officiel, and Elle. I understand the review queue is long, but if possible, I would be grateful for an expedited review, as the topic is time-sensitive and currently receiving media attention. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. —EditorJMD (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Locked Redirects

[edit]

Occasionally I review a draft where the title of the draft, in article space, is a fully protected redirect, usually with a history including an AFD. I can't accept these drafts, even if I wanted to accept them. I have in the past thought that these drafts should be Rejected with a link to the deletion discussion, and possibly additional explanation. The most recent case in point is Draft:Verdis, but this is a general question. Should they be Rejected because the topic was already found not to be notable in the deletion discussion (and subsequent attempts to insert the article back into the redirect probably resulted in the full protection)? Do I need to give any other information to the submitter? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two years and nine months since the last AfD, which is sufficient time for the subject to potentially become notable. If the new draft includes substantial new content and is supported by reliable, independent sources published in the meantime, it should be evaluated on its own merits rather than rejected solely due to the previous AfD outcome. – DreamRimmer ■ 04:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the note of "substantial new content", I (and I am sure many of my fellow admins here) are more than happy to take a look and/or temporarily copy old versions of a page for reviewing purposes. On the specifics of Verdis, I'm a little pushed for time but a quick glance shows that the page is pretty darn similar to the deleted versions, so I do not necessarily disagree with the rejection.
In general, as with most of these sorts of things, it depends on the situation. For a page like Verdis, which has been deleted at least three times and appears to have a lot of socking involved in its creation, should be heavily scrutinised. However, I do not think that "this page has been deleted at AFD" should be an automatic Reject, along the same lines of thinking as DreamRimmer; there are plenty of reasons why a subject can go from non-notable to notable, especially after multiple years have passed. If the subject is notable, past deletions shouldn't necessarily matter (unless the AFD wasn't strictly about notability). Primefac (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, an old AfD should never be an automatic reason to delete. AfD discussions all not all well attended. Things can change. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline criterion for résumés

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #433

When reviewing new articles, I pretty often encounter biographies written like résumés. While those are clearly not fit for the encyclopedia, the current "advert" decline criterion isn't ideal for them, as these aren't really similar to more traditional advertisements, which means the advice given there might be less helpful. I think that a new decline criterion adapted to résumés specifically would be helpful (similar to our cleanup template {{resume-like}}). Here's what I've workshopped for now, which is of course very much open to feedback and changes.

This submission appears to read more like a résumé than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, that provide secondary analysis of the subject's life in context. In contrast, résumés will tend to list individual accomplishments and rely on self-published sources, which might unduly focus on positive events and fail to properly balance their weight. Please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies by using independent, reliable sources.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, I obviously support adding this as a decline and honestly think it looks ready to go CoconutOctopus talk 19:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks good - but would you need to pair it with a not (yet) notable decline as well? The issue with most of these is that the person is likely not notable, even with a rewrite. Lijil (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am thinking of it being similar in spirit to the "advert" or "npov" declines which are often paired with a notability-related decline if that aspect is relevant. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely support this!
Unsure whether it would be worth including a comment on conflict of interest as well? Most of the time these two issues go hand in hand but I appreciate sometimes an article might just be written in this style without a COI. sksatsuma 20:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to go through AfC, so I don't think we should put that into focus in the "decline" reason, as it might give them the impression that we're punishing them for being open about their COI. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is WP:PROF where, depending on which of the 8 criteria they meet, WP:primary non-independent sources are fine to use such as their CV or the academic institution for which they work and they often read like resumes so that needs to taken into consideration somehow. S0091 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah of course, my thinking was for all of the undeclared COIs, but I think it would muddy the water including this in the template, and just conflates the two issues where a talk page message is usually enough for an undisclosed COI. sksatsuma 21:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and Reject reasons should cite the strongest reason. For a resume, use “WP:NOTRESUME”. It is Capital-P Wikipedia Policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't link to WP:NOTRESUME, as that policy is about user pages, not articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For rejections, this would fit well under the WP:NOT rejection reason. For declines though, there is no WP:NOT, so I see why this might need its own reason. Anyway, I see a consensus here, so I've created a ticket to add it to AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is in fact a decline reason, not a rejection one. However, it's broad and given we see so many CV-like drafts I think having a specific reason with various helpful links is more useful than a decline that simply points to a long list of various other things it may have failed at. There's always the option of writing a unique decline each time, but let's be honest, that won't happen. CoconutOctopus talk 11:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. "not" is a decline reason (generically linking to WP:NOT rather than something more specific than WP:NOTRESUME). For rejections, I was thinking "e" (which links to WP:5P), which I guess I got confused with WP:NOT. Anyway, never mind. :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to this, having gone back and looked at the NOT decline reason, it's pretty lacking - literally just a link saying "go read WP:NOT". Is there any way to see how often each decline reason is used? CoconutOctopus talk 11:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to file an edit request at Template talk:AfC submission to add it to /comments, but I figured I could maybe ask you directly instead, as maybe there's a reason you wanted to add it to AFCH before doing that. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be modified in both places (templates, and AFCH). Feel free to do the template edit request, which will get half the work done :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Special:PermanentLink/1305858839#Edit request 14 August 2025! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and done. I hope! CoconutOctopus talk 14:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I went ahead and created [5] and [6]. Will leave them open for comment for a day before merging and deploying. Ping me in a day if I forget. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing! Small detail in the readme change, Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ-like could be replaced by the more general Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ, as not all categories follow the stricter format. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ-like could be replaced by the more general Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ. Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. AFCH patch merged and deployed. If it works great, barnstars can be delivered to User talk:Novem Linguae. If it is terribly broken, any random technical user that isn't me can be contacted. (Just kidding :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tony Wagner

[edit]

I would appreciate another look at this draft and my action on it. First, do other reviewers agree that it shows clear signs of having been written by a large language model? I thought that the heading of the Influence and Legacy' and the closing sentence were signs of artificial intelligence. Also, I had the choice of Declining or Rejecting the draft. There is a Decline reason for using an LLM, but I thought that we don't need to re-review a resubmission, so I Rejected. It isn't contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, only contrary to a policy. With no valid references, it does fail notability. I would like to see LLM use added as its own reason for Rejection.

Do other reviewers think that I was right to reject this draft, and do other editors think that my reasons were reasonable? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some reviewers might consider it a bit bity to reject straight out there, but it seems like a straight copy-paste from the LLM with no editorial input.
I've tagged for speedy deletion under CSD 15 as the last paragraph has LLM language that was meant for the user. sksatsuma 09:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Sksatsuma. I considered it a little bitey to tag it for G15 straight out, so I asked for another set of eyes. I thought that the last sentence was talking to the user, but was not sure, so am glad to see agreement. I didn't think it was too bitey to reject an autobiography with no references, whether or not the product of an LLM. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Otto Bihler Maschinenfabrik

[edit]

Hello Wikipedians, I'm kindly asking for advice. Many months ago, I created a draft on the Bihler company (Draft:Otto Bihler Maschinenfabrik). It has since been declined multiple times, but I don't quite understand why. It is said that WP:NCORP is not met. However, in that draft, I have demonstrated, using a source assessment table, why I believe that the Bihler company has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I know that not every source that I have cited falls within the WP:SIRS criteria, but still, I feel that, the number of sources that do, is sufficient. It would be very helpful to have a second thought on this. Any advice is very much appreciated. Thank you! --Casa Coto (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For better support, please move this post to WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:AFCHD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft moved to mainspace after being declined at AfC

[edit]

National Food Technology Institutes was recently moved from User:WikiFactzCheck/sandbox by the aforementioned user, after I declined it at AfC for not meeting notability guidelines. No edits afterwards, just a straight move. Would draftifying be inappropriate in this circumstance? Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 02:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it back to the draftspace. – DreamRimmer ■ 03:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone deal with this new mainspace duplicate? I'm working on improving the draft, as the topic is very much notable. But, per usual, the new editor is completely ignoring any attempt at engagement. SilverserenC 04:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren I have done so with @DreamRimmer's G6 rationale. I have also temporarily salted the page creation at XC level for a month, so feel free to move the draft over when done. – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've gone ahead and resubmitted it for AfC. I think it's in a good state now. Could use some info from the establishment of the institutes in 2012 (and 2019), but that can be stolen from the dedicated articles later if need be. SilverserenC 05:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:DreamRimmer - If you are draftifying articles that are not ready for article space, and have 44,000 edits, request the Page Mover privilege so as not to leave those useless redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I generally do not draftify articles. This was only the second draftification in the last few months. I will make sure to tag the redirects with R2 next time, and if there are many draftifications, I will surely request the page mover rights. – DreamRimmer ■ 05:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aydoh8 and interested responders: please see § How to respond to user moving unsubmitted or declined draft to mainspace? up the page a little bit. Not exactly the same circumstances, but fairly similar. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk formatting

[edit]

Has it been discussed before about changing the AfC help desk page from putting all questions from the same day under a “date heading” to just having each question under its own heading, like the Teahouse and regular Help Desk are? It would make it much easier to find specific questions, especially on mobile, and especially for anyone who doesn’t use UTC+0 for whom the dates are incorrect anyway. -- NotCharizard 🗨 09:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be easier to just change the preload; since we already have things separated by day, we don't really need to have the timestamp in the header itself. If anything, the header preload should be something like "Review of <draft name> submission by <username>". Primefac (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholders in drafts

[edit]

This isn't a question, but a comment and information. I reviewed a draft which had a few placeholders in the body of the article, one of which said [QUOTE], and the others were slightly expanded versions of that. The references all were of the form [insert source] or something a little longer, but were all placeholders. I hadn't seen anything like that, but they looked like something that a large language model had left for the user to fill in, and the user had submitted it without filling it in. I tagged it for {{db-g15}}, and it was deleted as G15. If I had previously seen a mention of that sort of placeholder as a "tell" about large language model usage, I didn't recall it. Maybe I didn't remember having read a mention of that, but in any case it is a sign of the work of artificial semi-intelligence interacting with human semi-intelligence.

Here is a question. If a reviewer isn't sure whether a draft has signs of being generated by a large language model, should they go ahead and tag it for G15 and let the admin decide, or what should they do? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing? It includes this as a tell. qcne (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From an admin perspective, it would be nice if the person tagging the page has done more than just a vibe check. I would liken it to G12 (copyvio) - some nominations are clearly drive-by taggings in that the CV tool will show a high(ish) percentage (like 75-80%) when it might only be matching a quote or a list in the draft. This isn't a requirement, of course, and not everyone will be as good at picking up on the cues as others, so I wouldn't say you must be 100% confident to tag it as G15. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Battle of Rusçuk

[edit]

Finished article, worth checking and publishing Kolya Muratov (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kolya Muratov: okay, it's in the pending pool, and will be assessed when a reviewer gets around to it. If you have any questions regarding it, please ask at the help desk. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ip:74.106.206.136 problematic submissions

[edit]

I wanted to give a heads up that IP:74.106.206.136 has been mass creating problematic sub-stubs for fossil taxa that have in several instances contained fully made up or false information. I have attempted to talk to them on the talk page but have seen no response at all and no change in editing. They are clearly going though a list in one of my sandboxes and not checking for any sources. There have been close to 18 in the past 3 hours, and only 4 have been rejected so far, but all should be.--Kevmin § 00:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all have now been declined and the the IP is now blocked for 3 months. S0091 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administration

[edit]

This page is for users working on the project's administration Idaltiabdella2020 (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Idaltiabdella2020. Yes, it is. Did you have a question..? qcne (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting a Rejected Draft

[edit]

This is a question about what the script allows, based on a question from User:Spiderone. Spiderone said that a draft had been rejected three times, and had two questions. The first was how the AFC script allowed the author to resubmit the draft after rejection, because rejection is supposed to mean Do Not Resubmit. The second was whether the draft that was being tendentiously resubmitted could be sent to MFD. I answered the second question by sending the draft to MFD. I am asking the first question here. It was my recollection in the past that the script would not permit resubmission of a rejected draft unless one of the codes was hacked to enable the resubmission. It doesn't look as though the originator hacked the codes. So should the script make it more difficult for a user to resubmit a rejected draft (since resubmitting a rejected draft is cheating)? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The script is not doing anything to prevent a user from resubmitting a rejected draft. At present, it is the template that adds and hides buttons as per the provided parameters, and then the script checks for button elements. If found and the user clicks the button, it opens the submit wizard where a few basic information checks are done, and the user can submit it. There are a few ways to resubmit a rejected draft, such as removing the reject parameter, adding a new template, or visiting Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting, filling in the title of the draft even if it is rejected, and then submitting it as if it is the first time. We can add a check in the script to go through all the revisions and their comments, and if any revision comment of the draft matches what the AFCH helper script uses when rejecting a draft, then the script should disable the submit button. To prevent manual template code manipulation in the draft, we can use an edit filter. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to the opinions of the group, but the above seems like a bit of overkill; if we're needing to amend or create a half-dozen different processes to stop one mildly annoying issue (that I may be wrong but seems somewhat uncommon) then we're going about it the wrong way. If anything, forcing people to not be able to resubmit will only lead to playing whack-a-mole with title variants as people try to get around the filters. Primefac (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we can't practically make re-submission impossible without a lot of work and there will always be ways they can work around it. Use the processes we have like disruptive editing warnings and MfD for the few cases that are problematic. Another approach I use is just ignore and let them drift to the end of the !queue - put your efforts into submissions from others rather than let problem editors take up too much time. KylieTastic (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree it's nearly impossible to patch it as title changes and filter bypassing can make all our work worthless this way. These were the two easy options that came to mind, so shared them. – DreamRimmer ■ 09:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MfD is not burdened by resubmitted rejected drafts. Send them there for review. It is entirely possible that the draft was not fairly rejected, and the author wants to not accept the rejection. When a resubmitted draft comes to MfD, I review whether it should have been rejected.
So far, I have not seen a rejection that was unjustified. On the other hand, I have seen a lot of declines that should have been rejects. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I think that the answer to User:Spiderone about the process is that it isn't feasible to prevent tendentious resubmissions of rejected drafts, and that there is agreement that they should be sent to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RfC: Including emojis in G15. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions regarding reviewing

[edit]

Hello. I'm a new AfC reviewer, I have spent this month conducting some reviews. Some of these have turned out to be part of a larger situation, the majority resolved. I have a few questions about reviewing that I would really benefit from having answered.

  1. Are AfC reviewers allowed to help copy-edit, create new sections, add images—basically editing a draft so that it can be accepted? I realise now that doing this could be seen as unfair so clarification would be really appreciated. I've contributed about 20-30% in authorship to both Sonic the Hedgehog fandom and Sylveon, both of which I accepted through AfC. However, I did most of the author contributing after their respective acceptances.
  2. Is it okay to contact draft authors on their respective talk pages for more information, or to give feedback and guidance either before accepting a draft through AfC or after? (Like here—also relevant to previous question).
  3. I have so far chosen to abstain from AfDs on articles that I have had prior involvement with either as an AfC reviewer or otherwise—is this encouraged or written in policy or guidelines somewhere? An admin said that this wasn't a policy they knew of. However, I still feel it better to do this, especially if I accepted the article, as then voting keep would feel biased.

That's all I can think of currently. I have found reviewing to be a very informative experience, and has been very helpful with my current enrolment at NPP/S, as some of the situations correspond to the questions asked there. Any answers are welcomed and will really help me improve the way I review articles! Thank you for reading! 11WB (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Totally up to you. If you have Opinions on a page, then you are welcome to comment at the AfD. If you personally feel that involvement in the page somehow prevents you from participating, then by all means abstain.
Primefac (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding #1, I'd say it's not just allowed but encouraged. Please do help get drafts over the line! -- asilvering (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the same about #2. One of the more common complaints we get is that authors just get templated declines with no further advice on what they need to change. (And yes, the template would usually tell them what needs to change, but they don't necessarily see it that way for some reason.) So adding some 'human' (as distinct from templated, because those are of course written by The Computer...) guidance may save them a trip to the help desk or Teahouse. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate these answers, thank you all! I prefer to assist where I feel able to, but I am cautious not to completely change everything the original author has done. So far I have done minor copy-editing or added in sections that I felt could benefit the draft or article. I don't remove anything (unless it is a copyvio). 11WB (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb, sometimes removing something really is the best thing you can do for a draft. At times drafts will be repeatedly resubmitted and declined for WP:V reasons, and I wish more AFC reviewers would simply remove the unverified content and accept the draft as-is, rather than sending the author back into another frustrating resubmission cycle. -- asilvering (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have rejected a few, mostly businesses that use their own website as references. I don't know if this is intentional but rejections aren't an option for filtering on Toolforge. It's still very helpful for both AfC and AfD statistics though. I've found that I prefer to keep articles and content wherever possible, but you're right in that often it isn't possible to do so. 11WB (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@11wallisb, do you mean "declined" or "rejected"? -- asilvering (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected. Where they are unable to resubmit. I've only used that on drafts that are clearly not appropriate or sourced properly for Wikipedia. 11WB (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, @11wallisb, just not sourced properly shouldn't be a reason for rejection, since theoretically the sourcing could be improved. Unless I'm misunderstanding you? Basically, rejection is for "there is no hope" situations. Or to tell a tendentious resubmitter to gtfo. -- asilvering (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example for you: Draft:JFE Shoji Electronics Corporation. This was actually my first rejection of a draft. 11WB (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had said that DG's comment about WP:WINARS had not been addressed in my reasons for rejection. Looking back at the draft now, it had actually been addressed. However, the sources used were still not appropriate. One of them was simply a link to the North American Panasonic website. 11WB (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say that one's into "tendentious resubmittion" territory. -- asilvering (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only other rejection I can recall doing is this one that I flagged on Liz's talk page. Understandably, she didn't respond, as I am now aware Liz is one of the busiest admins on the project. I was concerned about a potential partial IP block evasion from what I saw in that particular draft's edit history. 11WB (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being a bit too cautious on all 3 of these. All 3 are allowed and are fine. Since an AFC reviewer is someone who is probably much more experienced than the draft author in most cases, it is usually beneficial for someone of your experience level to make changes to the article and to opine on its notability. Hope this helps. Happy reviewing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically agreeing with the others, but my two-peneth
  • 1: Yes - Not required, but all improvements encouraged. I have ~13% of my accepts I have more than 50% contribution on
  • 2: Yes - Not required, but definitely encouraged.
  • 3: Your choice. Some abstain, some just comment to say why they accepted, some vote but usually state 'as reviewer'. For me it depends on the article and the reasons given for the AfD. If you feel the article is definitely notable in your opinion you have just as much right as any other to add your !vote.
List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters was a good accept as even though it has been dragged to AfD yet again the !votes so far show that it's a mixed bag so deserves a chance rather than being left to die in Draft. Basically, your doing a good job and going above and beyond. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very handy script/tool you used to get that statistic. I'll have to teach myself how to do that too! As for the AfD, I have respect for the nominator as an extremely knowledgeable veteran on that part of the project. My first ever AfD closure was actually changed from keep to no consensus due to the closure being a WP:BADNAC. That was even with 4 for keep against only their nomination. I've learnt now that even if the !votes do swing heavily to one side, if the reasoning isn't there, it won't close in that sides favour. Thank you for the detailed answers and kind words! 11WB (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Sort Question

[edit]

I just accepted a draft of an article on an insect species, Aphis lugentis, and rated it as Class C. A tab for the Stub Sorter is visible at the top of the page. This article is not a stub, because it is Class C. Why is the Stub Sorter showing up? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one stub sort user script. You and I both appear to use User:SD0001/StubSorter.js. If you're asking why it appears in the "More" menu for a C-class article... I think it appears for every article. In my case, I see it on the Main Page, for today's featured article, etc. Feel free to add more info if I'm missing something. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For a script to read the current class would be an extra API call as it is on the talk page not the article page. Unnecessary overkill when you can easily tell if it's a stub or not just by looking. KylieTastic (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a loosely related question. This aphid article was the first set of edits by the author, and they even got the taxobox set up. That is a very good start. Is there some recognition that should be given to the new editor? I am wondering whether the editor is in a class and has been given instructions by the instructor on how to create an article, but I am not inclined to ask, because it would come across as hostile. Is there any sort of recognition? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could give the editor a WP:BARNSTAR :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I usually go with a personal note rather than a template, but it is good to show appreciation for good new editors. KylieTastic (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, when I have encountered a new editor who started off with a useful contribution, they have as often as not been creating articles on species in some order. There are a lot of species that have been discovered and documented that we don't yet have articles about, and there is no question about notability, and there is agreement on what an article should say. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Splitting a Television Series

[edit]

I reviewed Draft: Wednesday season 2, which is a season article about a television series Wednesday (TV series) and declined it, with a reason of -merge- and an explanation that splitting a TV series article into seasons should be discussed on the article talk page. The submitter first took issue with the decline because they said that there wasn't more information to add to the draft and didn't need to be. I saw that I thought they had a valid issue with the canned wording of the decline for -merge-, so I struck that language from their talk page, but said that they should discuss splitting out a season article on the talk page of the parent article. The submitter disagrees.

So I have two questions. First, is there agreement that splitting off one or more season articles from the main article about a television series should be discussed on the parent article talk page, that is, the talk page of a article about the series? Second, do you agree specifically that the submitter of this draft should discuss it on the parent article talk page, and that I was reasonable to decline the draft until there is discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For better or worse, I stopped trying to remember the WP:TV guidelines a while ago. I highly suggest asking them about TV-related information (or since I'm thinking about it, I'll just cross-post). Primefac (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is any agreement on needing a discussion before creating a standalone season article. If doing so would directly involve splitting out content, that would follow regular splitting recommendations - but even then discussion isn't *needed*. If the new season article is not a split, rather creating an article with information that was not at a parent article, that is a regular creation and shouldn't need discussion.
In this case, though, having compared the draft to the overall series article, I would personally recommend a discussion: this is because (and you can point the user to this message) there is significant content overlap from the production section onwards, which would require content removal or summary at the main article, though some of the content copied is perhaps too short to suitably summarise. How this content, which it would not be ideal to simply duplicate, is handled between the articles could be worth discussing if there are regular editors at the main article. Additionally, there is content that is new to the draft season article, and some of the new content - namely the premise and episode summaries - could serve as effective 'replacements'. To prevent content being back-copied or other editing mishaps, establishing what this new content should be and whether any content from the main article is removed would be helpful (i.e. if the season article has episode summaries, the main article does not need them and can remove them, but the summaries at the two articles are currently different - which to preserve or how to combine). A message on proposed changes should be left at the talkpage of the main article and, like always, if there is no objection the edits can be made. The user creating/splitting a new season article should understand copying within Wikipedia and have an idea of how they are going to prevent a fork situation. Kingsif (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that if the series article is highly edited and this is the second season, then yes, a discussion should be held, as accepting a season 2 would mean that a season 1 must now be cut out from the existing article and the entire series article re-written. That seems like a backward way of forcing something without any discussion. If the series article isn't highly edited (lets say for an old series no one really cares about), then that shouldn't be an issue. But even then, a season 2 article shouldn't be created before a season 1 article is created. That's just a bad way handling this. Other than my opinion here, the relevant guideline is at MOS:TVSPLIT. Gonnym (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any rule about what needs to be discussed first, but in general I would say that the regular editors of a TV article should be in agreement that a split is necessary and justifiable. I don't think it is wrong to ask for such a discussion to take place before the season article is moved to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Season articles should be able to be standalone, independent from the parent article. It should not be copied and pasted from the parent article. — YoungForever(talk) 16:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

draft about a caste

[edit]

A brand-new account has submitted a draft about a caste which falls under WP:CT/SA restrictions. There's some indication of previous sock activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pawansharma04/Archive. What's the appropriate action here, and more generally about drafts in this CT? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 09:46, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that @331dot addressed this at AFCHELP. So a new editor can create and submit the draft but if it's accepted then they can't edit it again until they reach EC... this feels like something I would have trouble explaining to a brand-new editor. (Assuming they created this in good faith.) ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I have heard varying interpretations on this, ranging from mine to no, they can't even do that. I leaned towards my decision because they hadn't been notified of the restrictions. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My general reading of it is no, they can't edit or create articles on the topic. See also WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#Zatinya. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot @Jéské Couriano is correct. I thought the same until SFR kindly let me know I was incorrect. Per WP:ARBECR, non-ECR editors can only make edit requests on 'Talk:" pages. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano and S0091:, thanks for this clarification. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano and S0091: thanks, that makes sense and doesn't create a catch-22 for the new editor. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 22:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised all South Asian content is contentious now. Does that mean we can't accept any draft about anything related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc? Unless I suppose it's submitted by an ECR editor? Sorry if this has all been explained, I've been less active in the last few weeks. Lijil (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lijil: No - only articles, discussions, and edits related to what was formerly WP:GSCASTE and Indian military history are under the 500/30 rule. Any other topic in the South Asia area is fair game for non-XC editors. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 07:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So any articles related to caste or Indian military history we just decline with a note referencing WP:CT/SA? Lijil (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #264
Yes, and a CTOP alert to the draft creator. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 08:25, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would folks like this added as a decline reason to AFCH? That might make this less confusing. Something like... ctop - Unfortunately Israel/Palestine, Indian castes, and Indian military history have been designated contentious topics on Wikipedia, which means they are subject to special rules. One of those rules is that new editors (less than 500 edits and 30 days account age) may not create aritcles on these topics, so we cannot accept this. However we would be delighted to have you contribute to less controversial areas of the encyclopedia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be prudent. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, it might save well-intentioned newbies some pain. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 12:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A couple suggested changes: Israel/Palestine to Arab–Israeli conflict and for the last sentence I would change it "However you are welcome to contribute in less controversial areas....." or something like that though because I think "delighted" is a bit strong.
Also, fyi, I have a list of the Arab-Israel and South Asian CTOP notice templates on my User page folks might find useful. I always have hard time finding them. S0091 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filed a complaint against NeoGaze

[edit]
This has nothing to do with the Articles for Creation project. Feel free to start a thread somewhere more relevant, though from looks of it the answer has been given. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To NeoGaze, I have sent a complaint letter to Wiki corporate Office. You Wikipedia was listed as a source on Duck Duck GO Search Assist for the following: 1). Barry Equality Field Equation 2). Barry Infinity Equality Field Equation

I created a page what Duck Duck Go search assist stated because there are some of your talk editors who like to reject or Delete pages created everytime showing bias and discrimination because of conservative views. The actions of Wikipedia are unacceptable along with NeoGaze. The Barry Equality Field Equation uses Physics, Mathematics, and Computer Sciences along with M String Theory. If you do have personal issues than quit listing yourself as a source on my copyrighted and trademarked work. In the Martial Arts, We are taught to walk away from conflict but you have decided to pursue conflict. Barry Lee Crouse (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth are you trusting a Knowledge Panel-esque AI tool and blaming us for said tool that we have zero control over? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 22:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because your security is ?? All over the Internet you promoted AI tech companies from San Francisco now you are changing your tune all of a sudden because it no longer serves your purpose. When you are being caught as a listed source and now you are trying to clean up your mess that you created. Yes, I do blame Wikipedia like I said if you do not like someone with different views conservative than perhaps you should stop trying to pursue conflict. The fact of the matter is I have 155 Copyrights world wide with 15 plus trademarks some listed with the WIPO and it must really bother you so much.I haver also told wikipedia a few months ago that since you delete all of my pages I must demand that you have no more access into my copyrights based on Science and Technology and of course you dismissed this. Barry Lee Crouse (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are only volunteers, we have no control over what search engines promote. Whether you have 155 copyrights and 15 trademarks is irrelevant. What actual problem do you have with NeoGaze and their review of your draft? Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bcrouse2025g Wikipedia, as far as I know, has not actively approached third party sites like DuckDuckGo or Google to use Wikipedia as a source. If Wikipedia is a source, it is that platform's response that you are seeking. I have gone through the draft you have created and the responses that @NeoGaze had given to you on your talk page. First, the draft is sorely lacking as explained by NeoGaze. Please improve the draft as indicated by NeoGaze. Third party platforms use Wikipedia as a source partly is because the notability standards that we have for inclusion of new content. We will not lower the standards just at your say-so. Adhere to it, and we will have next to no issue with you. No freedom of speech is impacted here. You are free to say or do whatever you want, as long as you adhere to the rules of the house. If anything NeoGaze had not asked for outright deletion of the content yet, which in almost many other instances would be requested speedily for and deleted accordingly. – robertsky (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is from Duck Duck Go Search assist "Barry Equality Field Equation"
The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify concepts from M String Theory and Intelligent Design, exploring higher dimensions and the dynamics of physical fields. It is part of a broader set of equations that seek to explain complex phenomena in science and technology. bcrouse2025.vivaldi.net Pinterest
Overview of the Barry Equality Field Equation
The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify various concepts, including M String Theory and Intelligent Design. It is designed to explore higher dimensions, particularly the 6th and 7th dimensions, and proposes new insights into subatomic particles that traditional equations may overlook.
Key Features
Dimensions Explored
Dimension
Description
6th
Recognizes subatomic particles often ignored by other theories.
7th
Allows for higher-dimensional exploration and unification with M String Theory.
8th
Introduces complex issues regarding the existence of physical worlds.
Applications
Scientific Innovations: The equation is part of a broader portfolio of scientific products and theories, holding numerous copyrights and trademarks.
Theoretical Physics: It challenges conventional models, such as the Big Bang Theory, by advocating for non-singularity and dynamic parallel universes.
Conclusion
The Barry Equality Field Equation represents a significant attempt to advance scientific understanding by integrating various theoretical frameworks and exploring higher dimensions. Its implications could reshape how we view fundamental physics and the universe.
Wikipediabarryleecrouse.me
Please explain why Wikipedia is listed as a source ??? 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I invite you to read the URL of this page and then compare it to the obviously-not-Wikipedia URL at the end of that obvious AI post. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia was listed as a source from the following below:
The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify concepts from M String Theory and Intelligent Design, exploring higher dimensions and the dynamics of physical fields. It is part of a broader set of equations that seek to explain complex phenomena in science and technology. bcrouse2025.vivaldi.net Pinterest
Overview of the Barry Equality Field Equation
The Barry Equality Field Equation is a theoretical framework in physics that aims to unify various concepts, including M String Theory and Intelligent Design. It is designed to explore higher dimensions, particularly the 6th and 7th dimensions, and proposes new insights into subatomic particles that traditional equations may overlook.
Key Features
Dimensions Explored
Dimension
Description
6th
Recognizes subatomic particles often ignored by other theories.
7th
Allows for higher-dimensional exploration and unification with M String Theory.
8th
Introduces complex issues regarding the existence of physical worlds.
Applications
Scientific Innovations: The equation is part of a broader portfolio of scientific products and theories, holding numerous copyrights and trademarks.
Theoretical Physics: It challenges conventional models, such as the Big Bang Theory, by advocating for non-singularity and dynamic parallel universes.
Conclusion
The Barry Equality Field Equation represents a significant attempt to advance scientific understanding by integrating various theoretical frameworks and exploring higher dimensions. Its implications could reshape how we view fundamental physics and the universe.
Wikipediabarryleecrouse.me
This was from Duck Duck GO search assist for the "Barry Equality Field Equation" please explain why wikipedia is listed as a source and yet when I come out here it does not exist are you having IT Security Issues ? perhaps IP piracy ? I don't know but it is obvious you have a lot of explaining to do not recognizing the copyrights or trademarks is a sure sign that you need to be looked at closely. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ask DuckDuckGo, not Wikipedia. It is DuckDuckGo's prerogative to select what sites they display as results for their search tools. – robertsky (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have told Wikipedia if you are going to engage in content deletion than you should not have access into my copyrights in Switzerland. You do not wish to acknowledge the author than you must cease and desist. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, once again, wikipediabarryleecrouse.me is not en.wikipedia.org. If anything, wikipediabarryleecrouse.me seems more like a scammer's website address. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was copied and pasted from what the text from Duck Duck Go stated. I must insist that you or anybody from Wikipedia cease and Desist for not acknowledging the copyrights and trademarks. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a scammer is trying to take advantage of you or if a large language model AI severely misled you into thinking you've made a major mathematical breakthrough (you wouldn't be the first, it's been known to happen), but something has gone seriously wrong here and I don't know how we can help you. Mathematical equations cannot be patented, the name of an equation cannot be trademarked, wikipediabarryleecrouse.me is not a real website (neither is barryleecrouse.me), having a ProtonMail account does not mean every idea you've ever typed is registered intellectual property in Switzerland, and Wikipedia did not magically insert itself into your citations section.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jéské Couriano, it is not wikipediabarryleecrouse.me. the formatting from DuckDuckGo is lost when @Bcrouse2025g copied over the content of the AI Assist output. They are two separate links, with the Wikipedia link going to Field equation article in my search. – robertsky (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not buying your story please cease and desist. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then buy this: we aren't interested in an utterly unsourced draft about a novel field equation, which is why NeoGaze rejected the draft out-of-hand. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the wikipediabarryleecrouse.me as a domain isn't registered. – robertsky (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 3) Linking to a website domain is not copyrightable or trademarkable. Tenshi! (Talk page) 23:35, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must demand that wikipedia cease and desist it's Intellectual Property violations if it does not wish to acknowledge the author or the trademark for Barry Equality Field Equation. 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are being taken in by a scam website. We have nothing to do with this. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 23:32, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not buying your story 73.140.178.255 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And when i did the same search，the Wikipedia link was to Field equation article, which was probably used to give context as to what the search term was about. – robertsky (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked for myself and the "Search Assist" lists our article on Field equation as a source. This is bizarre, since our article says nothing about the "Barry Equality Field Equation" or anything even remotely similar. Wikipedia has done nothing here; I suggest you take this up with DuckDuckGo. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

templates

[edit]

I had a user submit Draft:Template:Railway accidents and incidents in the 1840s and it looks reasonable (1850s and 1860s already exist), but the AFCH tools acceptance gets stuck. Is there anything that should be done other than reminding the user that the A in AFC stands for Article? I'm going to move to templatespace and strip off the AFC templates. (and given that they have successfully created a template, and I have no idea how this could be COI, I'm going to suggest they stop using AFC for this type of thing. Comments? Naraht (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are allowed per the reviewing instructions. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that now, but I'm pretty sure the AFCH software got stuck in trying to approve it. I don't know where to report something in that regard.Naraht (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have accepted two templates (last one in July) and had no problems with it. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, not sure what I did wrong then. :(Naraht (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to report something. Bugs with WP:AFCH can be reported here on this talk page. Will need more details for a good bug report though, such as WP:DIFFS and error messages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Locked Title in Draft Space

[edit]

I have encountered an unusual situation, in that I looked at a sandbox that was tagged for review, at User:মোহাম্মদ জনি হোসেন/sandbox, and tried to move it to Draft:Tawhid Afridi. The draft title is locked. The history shows that it is locked due to repeated creation of drafts by sockpuppets. The history of the article title shows that an article was deleted in 2019, but the article title is not locked. I have asked the protecting administrator of the draft title to unprotect it down to ECP. Does anyone else have any other advice? I think that we agree that protection in draft space should be rare, and should be kept to a minimum. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'm sure Johnuniq would be willing to unprotect it when he sees your message and it will be fine to move it to draftspace then. In other cases it would also likely be helpful to check the account creating it to try to find out if it is another sock, but it doesn't look like it in this case so I think it's fine. (Side-note I do think template protection was a rather odd choice for it.) Sophisticatedevening(talk) 22:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was sufficiently uncertain about this that I did a detailed source analysis, and was surprised to find that there is significant coverage, and I accepted the draft. I filed my source analysis on the talk page of the draft (now the talk page of the article). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Draft:Steal a Brainrot now wikinotable?

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games § Draft:Steal a Brainrot now wikinotable?. Ca talk to me! 04:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC) Ca talk to me! 04:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-finasteride syndrome

[edit]

I would appreciate having another reviewer review Draft:Post-finasteride syndrome. This is a controversial topic, and has been locked down to an admin-only redirect for four years. My own opinion is that we should have a separate article on the syndrome, but that the decision on whether we should have a separate article should be made by the community by an AFD discussion.

The complication is that there is disagreement within the medical community as to whether this is actually a a defined syndrome with defined criteria, and it is not listed in the ICD, so that its status should be clearly explained in the article.

I have posted a request to the locking administrator asking to downgrade the redirect from admin-protected to EC-protected. In my opinion, the long-term locking of redirects should be minimized, because it interferes with the improvement of the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verfication for draft

[edit]
This is an article in mainspace and irrelevant to AfC. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 18:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello sir, actually i have created a draft on Indian actor Sanjay Dutt's Artistry and public image section. Since I have discovered many indian actors have this section, he is very popular even now. So i made it. I have the reliable references. I tried to keep it neutral. I have also go through the policies of living persons which many editors suggested me. So i followed it and designed this.

Please check, also if you find any error, let me know

Dutt has been described by critics as a versatile actor, with performances spanning dramas, thrillers, comedies and historical films. ANI News called him “an actor who has given some memorable characters to and wowed the audiences time and again.” Bollywood Hungama wrote, “He pulls off the characters effortlessly and he is closely involved with his team in deciding a character’s look.” Dutt has also been described as a fashion icon, Hindustan Times noted that his films popularised various styles such as mullets, leather jackets and distressed jeans. NDTV wrote that his strong screen presence and stylised villainy made him “South’s favourite villain". The New Indian Express compared him to Arnold Schwarzenegger, noting the range of his roles—from the poet in Saajan to the comic in Thanedaar, the lovable rogue in Munna Bhai and the police officer in Shootout at Lokhandwala. Eastern Eye noted that Dutt had “a rollercoaster life and career filled with high drama” but continues to be heavily in demand 40 years after making his debut as a lead and has a huge number of high-profile films on the way. Rediff.com described him as “a charmer and a terrific actor” and observed that he could bounce back after setbacks. Dutt was featured in Box Office India's "Top Actors" list three times in 1991-1993 and topped the list two times in 1992 and 1993. From 2012, 2013 and 2018, he was also featured on Forbes India's Celebrity 100, a list based on the income and popularity of India's celebrities. In 2022, he was placed in Outlook India's "75 Best Bollywood Actors" and "Actors Who Wear the Gangster Aura with Flair" list.

In media, Dutt is also regarded as the most controversial figure in Indian Cinema and often been referred as “Bollywood’s Bad Boy”. Despite his many controversies, he successfully established himself as an leading actor. Gooshh (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More eyes please

[edit]

on Draft:Thomas G. O'Neill; does it smack of WP:PAID to anyone else? —Fortuna, imperatrix 14:16, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly promotional in the career section, I would probably decline it for that reason alone. NeoGaze (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Declined. I have written comment templates {{praise}} and {{perssays}} for cases like this. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I never subst those templates. I don't get paid to do that sort of work, and the bot does get paid for it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Comment in Existing Article

[edit]

An AFC comment has been inserted into a mainspace article that has been in mainspace since 2011. This causes it to appear in the category of AFC articles in article space, which is usually populated by pages that have been moved from draft space to article space after being declined. So my first question is whether the AFC helper script does this, because I don't see an option to invoke the AFCH script when I am viewing an article. If the script does permit that, then maybe permitting that is a misfeature. If the script doesn't work on articles that have been in article space for a decade, then maybe an editor simply did a mistaken addition. The article is Pakistan Business Council.

The category of AFC articles in article space is usually drafts that were moved to article space, and a reviewer can evaluate whether they should be moved back to draft space, nominated for deletion, or allowed to stay in article space. In this case, I think that I will take out the comment and replace it with a tag. But can someone tell me whether they added the comment with the script, or whether they added it with a mistaken manual edit? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was added in manually, and the page has been deleted for copyvios. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

Hi there, I am new(ish) to Wikipedia but have taken a recent interest in the rapid development of technology and wanted to take a stab at my first tech/business related article. Would you recommend I start with a draft or is there anywhere where I can guage the notability before creating the article? I am exploring a few topics at the moment from new businesses to relevant entrepreneurs and am following the Notability guidelines as I'm doing my research, but would definitely love any guidance. Thank you in advance. SimonMubarak (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SimonMubarak, I suggest asking this at the Teahouse as this page is for the administration of the WP:AFC process. S0091 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SimonMubarak, starting with a draft would be a good choice and submitting via AfC to get feedback. If your first draft sails through then you know your understanding of the policies and guidelines is correct. However, if you have missed something draft is more tolerant where if you try to create directly you could end with a quick deletion which can be discouraging. Starting by thinking about notability is the best way to start, if you have 3+ independent reliable sources to show notability for a subject then as long as you're not running into copyright issues you should be good. As S0091 said, the Teahouse is the best place for new editors to ask questions, this is for reviewers and project administration. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YFA is a good read for new article-writers. Primefac (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091, KylieTastic, and Primefac: thank you all for the guidance. I will read the articles you sent me and begin working on my draft. And moving forward, I will ask my questions in the Teahouse. Thank you. SimonMubarak (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated draft and COI

[edit]

Hello, I recently reviewed and declined Draft:Buyankhishig unurbayar, then I realized the user bears the same name, which seems to be the subject of the draft herself. Then after I saw the editor made an almost exact draft before (Draft:Buyankhishig Unurbayar). Should one be nominated for deletion or something? NeoGaze (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases, I like to redirect the worse one to the better one, to reduce duplicate work. If they're identical, I guess you can flip a coin :) In this particular case, I'd probably go with the one that is capitalized correctly in the title. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Primefac (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created a redirect towards that draft, and since the user discloses the COI in the user page, it seems this is enough. NeoGaze (talk) 06:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Military History

[edit]

I just declined a dispute at DRN that was in the area of Indian military history because neither of the editors was extended-confirmed. However, this is about drafts in the area of Indian military history. If you are reviewing a draft in that topic area, please check whether the editor is extended-confirmed. It appears that some editors may be trying to use AFC as a way around the restriction. Please do not accept a draft that the originator will not be able to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to articles in the former WP:GSCASTE topic area and in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 20:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
The filing editor asked me what he was supposed to do after his DRN was cancelled. I said that they should leave the article alone, and that if they want advice, the Teahouse would probably give the same advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might also be a good idea to request ECP at RFPP so you don't have to worry about non-ECP editors editing the draft or article. Twinkle has an option for WP:ARBECR. S0091 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://github.com/NovemLinguae/UserScripts/issues/264 should help with this once it gets done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I reviewed this draft. On viewing it, a page-wide image of the band pops up, followed by some introductory information that should probably be in an infobox. Is there some guideline that I have forgotten about that says that an article should not begin with an oversized image? I assume that the rules about images in drafts are consistent with the rules about images in articles, because a draft is meant to be accepted as an article. It wasn't clear to me whether I should say something about the image. I have declined the draft as not meeting musical notability criteria, but I would like to know whether the image is an issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty easy mistake for newbies to make – infobox markup should have Example.jpg rather than [[File:Example.jpg]] for the "image =" parameter. Using the full [[File:]] is what causes it to be massive.
Easiest just to fix it on review, and leave a note (or direct them to MOS:INFOBOXIMAGE) so they know for next time. Nil🥝 04:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank drafts?

[edit]

Periodic reminder to check if there is hidden content in a seemingly blank draft, before declining it. I've just seen one which was declined twice as blank, although there was content hidden by a comment tag. I then discovered that the same author earlier had another draft also falsely declined as blank. Fortunately, both drafts were speedy fodder, so no great loss to the cause, but still. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFCH warns for this sometimes. The next time you see this issue, can you check if AFCH is emitting any warnings? If not, then perhaps you can give me a diff and I can figure out how to add it. If so, then perhaps we can enlarge the warning to make it more visible. The warning is emitted in the same place in AFCH as things like previous deletion notices. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm not sure if I've ever seen such a warning. What is the warning about – that the draft may appear blank but has hidden content? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This warning, I think: addWarning( 'The page contains ' + ( oneComment ? 'an' : ) + ' HTML comment' + ( oneComment ?  : 's' ) + ' longer than 30 characters.', 'View comment'. If you've never seen it before, perhaps it's broken and needs fixing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me in the sandbox. Draft:Sandbox –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I may have seen that, but probably just couldn't connect the dots. I'll keep an eye on it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, sure enough, now that I know what to look for and where, that warning ("The page contains an HTML comment longer than 30 characters. (View comment)") did just come up. And yes, I must have seen that a hundred times, I just never realised it meant this. But as long as I'm the only one too thick to make that connection, we don't have a problem. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are good reminders/notices for new folks and/or ones who might have forgotten! Primefac (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Request for Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo

[edit]

Hello, I have created a draft article for Sam Bayat Makoo (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) about a Quebec-licensed attorney and author specializing in immigration law and citizenship by investment programs. The draft uses independent, reliable sources such as *Gulf News*, *Caribbean News Global*, *The Corporate Immigration Review*, and *Le Barreau du Québec* to establish notability per WP:NBIO. No self-published sources (e.g., LinkedIn or Bayat Group website) are used. I am seeking feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, and neutrality to improve it before submitting to Articles for Creation. Please advise if additional sources, clarifications, or changes are needed to meet Wikipedia’s standards. Thank you! 

InsightAdventurer (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @InsightAdventurer. Submitting the draft for review is how you get feedback - you're asking for a pre-review which we don't really do. That said, you should have a read of WP:42 which outlines the sources you need in a basic way. qcne (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @qcne, for your response and for pointing me to WP:42. I understand that pre-reviews are not common, and I appreciate the guidance. I’ve reviewed WP:42 and ensured that the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) uses independent, reliable sources like Gulf News, Caribbean News Global, The Corporate Immigration Review, and Le Barreau du Québec to establish notability. Since I’m not ready to submit to AfC yet, I’d greatly appreciate any specific feedback on the draft’s content, sourcing, or neutrality from you or other editors to help improve it further. For example, are the current sources sufficient for WP:NBIO, or should I add more? Thank you for your time! InsightAdventurer (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like a review, you need to submit the draft for review. Rambley (talk / contribs) 14:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Rambley, for your suggestion. I understand that submitting to AfC is the best way for a formal review. I'll work on addressing the concerns raised by other editors (like sourcing) first and then submit the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) once it's improved. If you have any quick feedback on the current version, I'd appreciate it, but I respect the process. Thanks again! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just add, since it hasn't been mentioned yet, that this page is for discussing the administration and operation of the AfC project, not for discussing the progress or otherwise of individual drafts. You should put such questions to the AfC Help Desk... except that also there you will be advised that we don't provide pre-reviews. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @DoubleGrazing, for clarifying the purpose of this page. I apologize for posting in the wrong place. I understand that pre-reviews are not provided, and I’ll move my questions to the AfC Help Desk or submit the draft (Draft:Sam Bayat Makoo) formally via AfC once I’ve addressed all feedback. I’ve already revised the draft to remove non-independent sources based on other editors’ input and will seek further guidance at the appropriate venues, like Teahouse or WikiProjects. Thanks for your help! InsightAdventurer (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a "Mark page as reviewed" checkbox to the AfC Helper script

[edit]

For those of us who are both AfC reviewers and New Page Patrollers, I thought it might be helpful to add a "Mark page as reviewed" checkbox to the AfC Helper script. It would be unchecked by default. This way, if one intends to mark the page as reviewed immediately after accepting, one can do this from the AfC Helper script and doesn't need to leave the AfC workflow. It might save a little time. Thoughts? Toadspike [Talk] 17:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to the idea but I don't think it should be checked by default. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed necessarily, but I also don't think it's necessary; if one wants to patrol the page, there's already a "mark page as patrolled" hover text (or maybe it's just my settings?), and the patrolling of a page follows the page, so if I were wanting to patrol it and accept (which I don't, because I always prefer a second set of eyes) I would mark as patrolled and then review with AFCH. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the patrolling of a page follows the page. I don't think it does with PageTriage. I think a move from non-mainspace to mainspace sets the patrol status to unpatrolled, unless the mover is autopatrolled, in which case it sets the status to patrolled. I think the old patrol status when it was in draftspace is ignored/overridden.
Will watch this discussion and see which way the consensus goes. A patrol checkbox is certainly doable from a programming perspective. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always prefer a second set of eyes – while I agree that in borderline cases another check is helpful, I'm surprised you always leave it unreviewed. I'm not sure this is what's best for the project, given the state of the NPP backlog. Toadspike [Talk] 21:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I always leave it because the drafts I review are almost always borderline cases. Primefac (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for AfC Reviewer Rights

[edit]

Hello,

I would like to request AfC reviewer rights. I have been an active contributor on Wikipedia, focusing on creating and improving articles with proper citations from reliable sources. I am familiar with key content policies, including:

Notability – ensuring that subjects meet Wikipedia’s general and specific notability guidelines.

Reliable sourcing – using high-quality, verifiable sources and avoiding self-published or promotional material.

Neutral point of view – keeping articles free from bias and promotional tone.

I have experience working with drafts, cleaning up articles to meet Wikipedia standards, and I understand the AfC reviewing process, including when to accept, decline, or reject drafts. My goal is to help reduce the backlog at Articles for Creation by giving constructive feedback and approving articles that meet the criteria for inclusion.

Thank you for considering my request. Iamnilesh0321 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Iamnilesh0321. I hope you're doing well. Thank you for your contribution and interest in this right. This is not a right place for this request. You can request it here. Currently, you do not meet minimum criteria for this right. As you must have 500 undeleted edits and your account must have 90 days old. I request you to gain more editing experience and participate in AfD discussion and then come back with request. Did you use AI to write this request? Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace main space stub with submitted draft?

[edit]

We have one of these unfortunate but unavoidable situations at help desk where a draft author is less than happy about having waited for a month to have their draft (Draft:National Christian Union (Romania)) reviewed, only to find that someone has meanwhile published an article in the main space on the same subject (National Christian Union (Romania)). Normally I'd say first-to-publish has dibs, but on this occasion the main space article is a very short stub, and only cites two sources so arguably fails (within the confines of the article) WP:ORG, whereas the draft is much better developed. I'd argue it is clearly in the interests of the 'pedia to have the latter content published. Therefore, two possibilities come to mind: 1) move the stub into drafts on notability grounds, and accept the pending draft instead; or 2) simply copypaste the contents of the draft into the published article, and then merge the histories. Does either of these make any sense (and are they ethical)? If so, which is better? Or is there another approach? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is a good WP:IAR case, and I would support just replacing the mainspace version with the better one in draftspace, then merging the histories. I wouldn't see how this could be any less ethical than say, replacing an article with a better copy you made in your userspace or something. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 15:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cristian9343, the draft's creator, merged it and redirected the draft to the article so I think this is good now. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your intervention on this matter. I thought nothing else could be done other than merging, given the responses at the help desk, and so I rushed to carry out the merger. Nonetheless, I thank you once again for your intervention. Cristian9343 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft with text copied from a CC BY-SA 3.0 source

[edit]

I was just checking the following draft Draft:Andrew Peterson (farmer) and the Copyvio tool showed me that most of the text has a 82.6% similarity with the material of this source. The thing is that source goes under the license CC BY-SA 3.0, so I am unsure about how to proceed. Is this fine or should the text be removed? NeoGaze (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoGaze It is permitted, and all that is needed is a {{Free-content attribution}} at the bottom of the draft and maybe a {{Uw-unattribcc}} on the submitter's talk page. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NeoGaze, here's a simplified explainer: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
It looks like the reference includes " Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. License" so this is adequate. Alternatively, you may see a template at the bottom of the referencing section as well, for example {{Free-content attribution}}. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby Cohn @Sophisticatedevening Allright. Thanks for your quick replies! NeoGaze (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]