Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

64.121.103.144

Does anyone have any advice about how to deal with this unregistered editor who submits articles on spacecraft and space exploration that have to be declined repeatedly and rejected? I have had the idea of asking for semi-protection, but they haven't been sufficiently disruptive to warrant that. I have sent one of their drafts to MFD, and am about to send another one to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If they're being disruptive, you could always ask for them to be partially-blocked from the Draft space. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

They like to come in to IRC and rant about it as well... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Rich Smith - They complained at the Teahouse that they had been banned from IRC. Then they were blocked for 36 hours on ENWP, but have now come off block. Just out of curiosity, do you know if they were blocked from IRC for a period of time, or indefinitely? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon All IRC blocks are temporary lasting around 24 hours if I recall correctly. If I recall correctly, they were blatantly canvassing and refused top stop when asked to by both myself and Prax. See This archived thread also. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, User:Rich Smith. Only time will tell now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories

I'm requesting changes to the redirect submission wizard on the above linked page (its own talkpage redirects here)

It is clearly possible to submit multiple entries targeted at the same page via the wizard. It creates [[wikilinked entries]] / [[separated by slashes]] . I tried to recreate this by plugging identical requests into the wizard, but it failed miserably and needed manual repair.

I've got no clue how it even works, much less how to fix it, so I'm afraid I'm no help. All I can do is flag the problem and ask for somebody more knowledgeable than I to help. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi person editing from ...246.11. The wizard provides an interface with a bunch of plug-in instructions, utilizes a template that provides a variety of helpful wikimarkup formatted output, so that even people pretty much entirely unfamiliar with wikimarkup can successfully submit requests. Every part of that output can be done manually, by anyone with the know-how.

The diff you're pointing to is just someone who understands a bit about how the markup and template output actually function together and knew how to bypass the wizard. I'm not sure how useful it would be in explaining that in detail; suffice it to say, yes, it's possible to do multiple entries in a single edit, and not difficult at all if you're steeped in this stuff; I am actually crap at it, and yet could do this in my sleep because of my long familiarity here; it would be utterly rudimentary for anyone who does actual programming.

However, the whole purpose of the wizard is to provide an easy method for the uninitiated, so making changes to the wizard – adding a layer of complexity to the wizard's guidance – to address a possibility most people don't need (i.e., most requests are for a single redirect) – would seem to me to defeat the purpose. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, so what I'm proposing is actually impossible and that guy just typed it all in manually? Well, that's disappointing. Thanks for your time. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Gimmick to Look Out for (Duplicate Press Releases)

I have noticed (and it didn't require much observation) a trick to be aware of with conflict of interest advertising. A draft was declined as not having references. So it was resubmitted with three references. The three references were different web sites, but had the same title in the URL. So I checked them, and they were the same press release (word for word) provided to two wire services and published on the parent company's web site. I declined it, and said that the three references were the same press release. I thought of rejecting it, but sometimes rejecting a submission is more work than is necessary.

It also shows that press releases have little if any value because they are not even paraphrased. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Press release, of any kind, have zero value as a source, they are even worthless to source the views of a company. Press release publishers will publish anything, and they don't even remove hoaxes and scams. I once reported, to three publishers, a press release that was used to create legitimacy for a fake company used in an employment scam, and months later, this scam press release was still there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, sort of, User:Oiyarbepsy. I knew that press releases were not acceptable because they are not independent and can contain puffery; but you have told me that they are even more unreliable than I had thought. Do three press releases have the same value as one press release? What if they are three copies of the same press release? If the value is zero, then ordinary arithmetic provides an answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

In such cases where there are three (or more!) identical press releases simply released under one name, I will (assuming there is some valuable information there that could be a valid primary-use case) condense them into one reference so that it is more obvious that one source is being used for the related statements. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Brief summary

I submitted a brief summary from a media source that was critical of Best Buy, and then all critical posts attributed to news organizations, from 2014 on, (not just mine) were deleted -- these appeared on the site prior to mine -- it appears to be censorship -- there was no copyright infringement. I am a published author, and an attorney, and summaries of news articles with attribution are permitted in the U.S. It appears to be censorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.181.4 (talk)

This page is for discussing the operation of the Articles for Creation area; you may have been looking for the Help Desk for this area. 331dot (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The other page, of course, is Talk:Best Buy. Primefac (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

IP redirect drafts

I wonder what one is supposed to do with these redirect drafts? (Special:Contributions/197.1.28.99, Special:Contributions/197.3.173.74, Special:Contributions/41.62.153.52) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• I always wonder with those types of redirect if its just an attempt to get he article created so then they can replace with non-notable articles :/ KylieTastic (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • All of these should be taken to RfD. Note that most of them also pollute mainspace categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• After checking a few more I didn't find any of these submitted - so just ignore for 6 months. KylieTastic (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed, if it's just a redirect from the draft space, they're CHEAP, so leave 'em be (though obviously the mainspace cats should be removed). Primefac (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Except draft redirects do not qualify for g13. So these will exist forever if nothing is done. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

True, though I do not necessarily see that as an issue. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Editors create draft pages for every possible title that could ever possibly relate to a mainspace article, and redirect those drafts to the article. See where I am going here? UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• UnitedStatesian sorry no - I for one don't see where you are going. As far as I'm aware deleting an article does not actually delete it but just marks it as hidden from us mere mortals - so no trimming the database to make things more efficient. Possibly having loads of undeleted redirects could slow some searches of active content but the content in draft is nothing like that in main-space. The only reasons I see to delete drafts is to stop annoying everlasting re-submitters, and to stop someone from linking to externally to fool those not paying attention that it is a Wikipedia article (I have seen a few self promoters do that). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

User creating directly in mainspace despite warnings - any steps before WP:ANI?

This is not directly related to the AFC project but I can think of no better place to ask, and I guess some of you must have seen similar situations.

Basp1 has created quite a few articles (mostly about historical topics in Iraq/Iran) directly in mainspace. The articles are a mess, but they look referenced and it is not like we have an overabundance of scholarly experts on that sort of topic. They do not communicate, so I could probably go to ANI and ask for an attention-grabbing block. That would probably cause them to just leave and never return, so I would like to try a softer step if possible. The question is: what? Any ideas?

The unimportant details: Mohammed Ajam was brought on the attention of the Help Desk due to a category error. They created it in mainspace, it was moved back to draft and I left this message too, they just moved it back to mainspace without addressing the problems. I rather doubt the article would pass AFC in its current state. Looking at their talk page they have been doing this kind of stuff for quite some time now. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it is a problem with an article, you can use AFD to get a discussion on whether to delete it, rather than just move warring over which space it is in. Normally there should be more warnings (say 4) before the user is blocked. The disruption is not too much that urgent attention is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Tigraan - Have they been topic-banned from creating articles in article space, or only cautioned against creating articles in article space? If cautioned, by whom and how severely? If the issue is only with one or more articles, I think it is less disruptive to take the articles to AFD than to take the author to a drama board. If it is a large number of articles, then that is different. I am not sure what a large number is, but 3 is not a large number. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There are a quite a slew of warnings about unreferenced content etc. including a Twinkle DE notice on their page, but they are quite old. More recently, I see one warning in March about a draftified article suggesting to use AFC's submit button, and I left my own warning too. Two recent poor articles is not a "large number" but if you count the older warnings (that seemed to go unheeded) it is more like 10 or so. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The use WP:DRAFTIFY is this way is probably not productive. Go ahead and take it to AFD if you think it needs to be addressed. Consider the possibility that creating unfinished articles on historic subjects is not actually disruptive. ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kvng in the specific that moving such an article to draft space is not useful, but more generally that sometimes articles that are moved to draft space would be better taken to AFD. An article should, in my opinion, only be moved to draft space to be improved and resubmitted. There are two situations in which an article should not be moved to draft space. The first is if it has already been moved to draft space once and moved back. A second draftify is move-warring. The second is if the article is hopeless. Those are my opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My question was more about a pattern of conduct that a single article, but at any rate:

I do agree with Novem Linguae's recent (second) move to draft might have been worse than AfD at this point. Creating unfinished articles is OK, but in that case it is a nonsensical article - per my message on their talk page it is not even clear who is who in the story. If the article does not bring any value beyond a list of refs, I doubt it should be in mainspace. (I kind of suspected the article to be a hoax, to be honest.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Tigraan, hey there. Thanks for the ping. At the time of my draftification, this user recreated the article with a different spelling (Mohammed instead of Mohammad). She also recently erased user talk comments. I was not aware of the history when I draftified. I do agree with Novem Linguae's recent (second) move to draft might have been worse than AfD at this point. Are you saying you disagree with the draftification? I guess you could always move it back and AFD it if you'd like. I don't mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion - Draft:Loadbalancer.org

Please could someone give me a second opinion on Draft:Loadbalancer.org. Notability may hinge on whether hostingadvice.com/blog/loadbalancer-org-helps-businesses-streamline-web-traffic/ is considered a reliable, independent source, however the domain is currently blacklisted. My gut feel is that this article from a declared paid SPA only serves to publicize the company. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer I agree, and I declined it as such. I'm not about to offer a paid editor a great deal of help, though. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles Nominated for Deletion After Acceptance

Review by Articles for Creation reviewers is intended to have an experienced neutral editor look at a draft, and so reduce the likelihood both that it will be nominated for deletion and that it will be deleted. However, articles that were reviewed and accepted do sometimes get nominated for deletion. Acceptance by a reviewer doesn't mean that it won't be deleted; the guidelines for reviewers say that the reviewer should make an informed guess that the likelihood of deletion is less than 50%. (Is that a correct reading of the guideline?) So I have a few thoughts about articles that have been accepted and then nominated for deletion.

First, if a reviewer recognizes that there is a reason why an article may be nominated for deletion, and the reviewer decides to accept it anyway, should the reviewer provide a brief statement on the talk page of why they accepted the article?

Second, is there some way that a reviewer can be notified if an article that they accepted is nominated for deletion? If either the nominator or another editor chooses to notify the reviewer, that is good. Can a bot be written to identify editors besides the originator who should be notified of an AFD? (I think that there is even more value to notifying a previous reviewer who draftified the article, because sometimes an article is repeatedly moved between article space and draft space and then taken to AFD.)

Third, are there any common-sense rules for the accepting reviewer when an article is nominated for deletion? (Such as make a brief statement and then let the process run.)

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. Seems to be make-work; the acceptance is a judgement call, so if others disagree, then there's always AfD.
2. I generally do not keep the articles I accept on my watchlist, so I would not know. I guess one can always keep an eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Article_alerts#AfD, but that's not something I personally do. My take is that there's no need to notify the reviewer. It seems better to let the process play out, with other participants.
3. As with any AfD, the accepting editor can provide a rationale for either delete or keep, if the reviewer chooses to participate. The guidelines are the same.

Hope this helps. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon

1. I make it a practice to write a note about my acceptance when the act is borderline, explaining briefly, but not in a manner to seek to persuade, why I accepted it.
2. I watch acceptances. I am concerned if they are deleted, but only to seek to improve my reviewing.
3. I make a practice of remaining neutral if I comment at all on an acceptance of mine that has gone to AfD

I think each of us works differently. Fiddle Faddle 20:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Timtrent. As to point 1, making a note about a borderline acceptance, remember that what one reviewer thinks is borderline might not be what another reviewer thinks is borderline. So when in doubt, leave a brief note. The amount of work in writing a brief explanation should be less than the work that went into reviewing the draft. If the note is more work than the review, then the note is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

My usual statement is a variant of "I accepted this draft at AFC knowing it to be borderline, and confident that the community will make good decisions about it. I felt it needed more eyes that AFC reviewers and the creating editor"

A good decision is to enhance, to leave alone, or to delete. I dont; mention that. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I watch any accepts for 3 months, since that's how long it will take to get patrolled (oh, yeah, I also un-patrol after I accept). If there are any borderline accepts, like Timtrent I will leave a note giving my thoughts and (usually) saying that I don't particularly care if it's nominated for AFD. As far as the third point goes, I suppose whether your participate or not is up to the reviewer; I do not because (as mentioned) I generally have already said my piece and if it's going to AFD I figure someone else should be deciding the outcome. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I often leave a note about my acceptance rationale on the article's talk page. I leave a similar note in AfC comments on declines. Composing a note is minimal incremental work after I've done the review. It hopefully helps authors and AfD noms and it definitely helps me if I need to make an AfD argument or respond to an author question. I generally keep drafts on my watchlist for 30 days. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon I agree it would be nice to always be notified of an AfD for an article you created - for now there is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Article_alerts#AfD its just a pity it has all the other stuff rather than just a list of latest AfC AfDs. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  There is/was a conversation recently in which we were discussing the possibility of having a bot to notify the reviewer if a page goes to AFD. If it goes through I'll be sure to post here, as I suspect there are a few people who would want to opt out. Primefac (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm of the view that an AFC shouldn't be accepted unless there is a 90% chance of keep at AFD. We don't want a user to go thru all the extra time to follow the rules only and get it accepted, only for it to get deleted later anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  As long as you are not declining drafts of that nature, that's fine, but sometimes the creator of the page needs to be told by the community (via AFD) that their subject is not notable. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Oiyarbepsy reviewing a draft perfection is counterproductive in two ways:

  1. if we all did this to each draft the backlog would become e n o r m o u s instead of just far too big
  2. As a creating editor I would soon give up and walk away, leaving my draft, ptentially a useful article, unfinished

  In both cases Wikipedia suffers.

  Apart from the review principles we all agree to we need to consider that the creating editor is by no means always (Often?) the best person to improve a draft. AfD sometimes deletes, sometimes keeps, sometimes improves an article. Let's allow the community to do its job, please. Fiddle Faddle 18:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Don't strawman me bruh. I didn't say perfection. I didn't say anything that remotely resembles perfection. Just enough that it won't die during AFD. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Oiyarbepsy I am not anyone's "bruh"

  I agree that I over interpreted I'm of the view that an AFC shouldn't be accepted unless there is a 90% chance of keep at AFD. Fiddle Faddle 19:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment: If I accept a draft after a prior decline (there may have been two or three cases), then I leave a note on the Talk page to indicate that the page meets a certain guideline -- PROF, AUTHOR, etc. -- as the content may have been updated / revised, or I just have a different take. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Script potential enhancement/issue

From time to time reviewers appear to work faster than the script "allows". This means that drafts can be accepted into main space, but that the AFC artefacts can be left on the newly created article, and the talk page is not created with acceptance details, projects etc. The accepting reviewer is unaware, and moves on. Thsi also leaves the "Submissions in Article Space" category with content that ought not to be present, and would not be had the script run to normal EOJ

I think this may be because the reviewer accepts and moves on too fast, so the script interface aborts the process mid set of tasks.

The enhancement, if that is what is required, is to have the script "fire and forget" rather than need the browser page open start to finish.

I agree that its is the reviewer's responsibility to check their work, but pragmatism suggests this will not always happen. Fiddle Faddle 08:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments and Details

User:Timtrent - Thank you for explaining. I have seen this when checking the category of "Submissions in Article Space", and have seen that it has several different types of articles:

• 1. Articles that were moved to draft space by a reviewer, and then moved back to article space by the author.
• 2. Articles that were in draft space, and were submitted to review, and were then moved to article space by their author.
• 3. Articles that were accepted by a reviewer, but, as Timtrent notes, were not fully accepted.

That is a useful explanation of category 3. I was wondering why a few reviewers sometimes left articles in category 3. Did the reviewer close the browser window before the script was finished doing its cleanup? If so, and the reviewer just wants to do more work, the reviewer should open another browser window beside the one where the script is still running invisibly.

Category 2 are not really different from articles that were created in article space. They can be left for New Page Review.

Category 1 are articles that are being move-warred. Some reviewers move them back to draft space a second time. I think that is move-warring, and that reviewers should avoid move-warring even when they are otherwise right, and that the least bad way to deal with them is normally to send them to AFD.

So I think that category 3 has been explained as due to closing the browser window while the script is still running. What we should request, then, is that the reviewer open another browser window rather than closing the window. Is there agreement that this is what causes category 3?

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I appreciate your analysis. I'm hoping cat 3 can be resolved by the script rather than by asking the reviewer to do something. I base that m the fact that we are human and fallible. Well, I know I am 🤪 Fiddle Faddle 16:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

As it is a user script, it must run on the window from which it was started. Unfortunately there are (sometimes literally) a dozen places the script has to edit, so depending on the browser, internet connection, and the database, this could take a sec. Patience is the name of the game here, as I don't really think there's anything that can be done to AFCH itself to significantly speed up the process. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. That explains why I have seen certain reviewers leave articles in this state all the time, and I have never seen that I have accidentally done this. That is because I keep multiple browser windows open side by side, and switch between windows. The disadvantage of this approach is that it uses more memory in my computer, although snoozing reduces that. With or without browser snoozing, the idle windows will get swapped out in one way or another. So what I understand User:Primefac to be saying is that if the reviewer closes the browser window, the script stops running, or actually goes away. The move from draft space to article space is one of the first steps done by the script. There are multiple other steps, such as removing the AFC comments, and putting an AFC WikiProject template on the talk page, and other stuff. So if you close the browser window, which can be done either by closing it or by selecting another link, the acceptance is partly done and partly remaining to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So my next question is whether there is a cleanup script that can finish an interrupted acceptance? Or does that have to be done manually? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

That explain category 3. Category 2 should be left to the New Page reviewers. Category 1 may need to be sent to AFD. Unfortunately, if the same editor keeps putting articles in category 1, they may need to be sent to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Drafts of Previously Deleted Articles

Most of you have probably noticed that when the reviewer clicks on the Accept/Reject/Comment link of the AFCH script, the AFCH script lists any times that articles with the name of a draft were deleted. This is a very useful feature and I would like to urge all reviewers to make use of the feature. Some previous reasons for deletion are irrelevant, but some are critical. If the previous article was PROD'd or was deleted as A1, A3, or A7, and the draft is reasonable, the previous deletion was because the previous article was not reasonable, and can be ignored. If the previous article was deleted as G12, copyvio, it is worth checking whether the draft contains any copyvio. Spammers often keep trying. If a previous article was deleted after an AFD, then the reviewer should take great care in reviewing the draft. I would advise against accepting the draft unless you know that the draft contains information that was not in the earlier article. The draft will contain new information if it lists achievements of the subject after the date of the deletion. Also, you can ask for a copy of the deleted article at Requests for Undeletion, saying that you wish to compare the draft with the deleted article. They won't restore the deleted article to article space, but they will email it to you. If the draft is essentially the same as the deleted article, then decline or reject it as lacking notability, and note that notability was already decided by the AFD. Remember that some "fans" (see WP:Ultras and WP:Fan Clubs) can be tendentious, and many spammers are tendentious. If a title was previously deleted, and is then accepted, there is likely to be another AFD unless there have been new events.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll just put it out there that if anyone needs a copy of a deleted draft, drop me a note and I'll throw it in a sandbox somewhere temporarily for ease of viewing. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

For those who're too impatient to wait for an admin, there also exists User:SDZeroBot/AfD_grid and User:SDZeroBot/PROD_grid where you can see a short snippet of deleted articles. Go to the page history of the grid and open the revision corresponding to the day the article in question was deleted. – SD0001 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Primefac - The article in question that started this is Simron Upadhyay. If you can either email it to me or put it in User:Robert McClenon/sandbox7, that would be excellent. Thank you. Of course, this has happened other times also. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no more content on the deleted pages than in the current page, fwiw. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Both crud, then. Thank you. But the real question is whether there was more information on the current page than on the deleted page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I get philosophical

Out of curiosity, how often do you go through the archives? Do you find the archive system as it is currently set up acceptable? If there were one (or two) changes you would want to make to the archive box/system/etc, what would it/they be? Primefac (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Hard links would be nice, not just here, but in the noticeboards archive system as well I can't think of the number of times I've gotten peeved off looking for a discussion. The time it takes to find stuff is shocking really. A hard link in the discussion just makes it go away. Click and you're there. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about an archive index like Legobot used to do? (I know I've seen one recently but I can't think of where otherwise I'd give a linked example) Primefac (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There's the find-archived-section gadget that makes normal links as good as hard links. Also general tip while using the search system: use quotations – for instance if you want to search for this discussion in the future, it will return random stuff if you search for I get philosophical but searching "I get philosophical" should immediately lead to this discussion. – SD0001 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's rare I go to the archives but sometimes you do need to find a previously discussed item that had a useful answer/link/policy. It's a slow process but that it mostly because I never remember exactly what I'm looking for. KylieTastic (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I do find it hard going. I get there. @SD0001: I will take a look at that wee script.:) @Primefac: I've not seen that Legobot thing, but something like that maybe. An index with dates when the discussion occurred/started would be a decent solution? It would be a quick read, instead of a search. I'll see how this script gets on. The MediaWiki engine must maintain an index already, which the script is using. A common service scenario. scope_creep^Talk 13:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

What is your opinion on these third-party articles regarding the AfC process?

These articles were written to educate people about the AfC process, but in my opinion, they seem to be promoting COI editing. What is your opinion on these articles?

[1]

[2]

Félix An (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Félix An - Both of the above with regard to both. They are written to educate people about Wikipedia for a purpose that conflicts with the mission of Wikipedia. Of course they are promoting COI editing when they are writing in publications for marketeers and marketroids. I think that the first one is telling a deliberate half-truth when it says that you don't need approval to put an article directly in mainspace, because you do need approval to put an article directly in mainspace IF you are a conflict of interest editor.

Thank you for providing these links to opposition articles.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the first piece is more saying that "getting approved" via AFC is a misnomer because the page can still be nominated for deletion. I do think the second one holds a bit more of a "how to get away with paid editing" vibe to it but that's likely because the author edited for pay (one can only hope they disclosed that).

Of the two, the first is a bit more realistic about our processes, and in truth some of the things said have also been said here (in particular, the non-requirement to go via AFC). I do appreciate the second's approach to "make small changes and get to know the community" before attempting something like creating an entire article.

So I guess overall they're not great, but they're not terrible. They don't blatantly misrepresent anything, and make some valid points. All in all, a solid "meh" from me. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting articles. 1) The first article might have a false premise, which is that many AFC approved articles end up getting deleted. I would hope that is not the case, and that most AFC approvals are solid articles with a low chance of getting AFD'd. 2) The second article has some misinformation. It says that you have to be a registered user to edit articles. And it strangely recommends drafting articles in our public sandbox or one's user talk page (both bad places). Her inexperience shows a bit, but interestingly she speaks highly of Wikipedia and says she had a good experience. I guess unlike a lot of COI/UPE, her client's company and products were actually notable. Good reads just to see the perspective of COI/UPE marketing people using the AFC process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's disgusting that the first website has a link to a book called Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool: How to reap the marketing benefits of Wikipedia by Mike Wood. I clicked the dislike button and wrote the following one-star review on the book's infobox in Google Search:

"This book absolutely misrepresents Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is not meant to be a marketing tool for anyone. Also, Wikipedia has a policy against conflict-of-interest editing. If you really want a Wikipedia article about your company, first, your company should be notable enough and included in reliable sources such as journals and news reports. Next, someone else who is not associated with your company should write the article to ensure the article's neutrality."

The review should show up eventually.

Félix An (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The are both fair enough. They give an newcomer outsider view. They fit well with WP:DUD. Meh. Yes, advice for inept COI writers. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The two article are quite old, and probably too far outside the window to be relevant. scope_creep^Talk 15:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

How is my AfC reviewing?

I recently got accepted as an AfC reviewer on a probationary basis. I would appreciate some feedback on how well I have reviewed articles, such as how helpful my comments are to the works in progress. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the IoT device management. It shouldn't have been promoted, really. When folk create an article, whom are not necessarily academic, they tend to focus their referencing efforts on consumers' websites, as this editor has done. But often, most device or device infrastructure is super complex. IoT device management is at the top of the scale in complexity, so it needs academic sources, in all cases to explain it properly. Here is an example sentence: When the connection between devices and the server is established and devices are configured, the platform collects the data from devices for analysis. It is completely generic and there is no explanation of how the thing works. Also, large sections of this are unsourced. Three references out the eight are WP:SPS sources. They are junk. There is a script that shows references that are poor or are unsuitable or a low-quality, or combination. It is worth getting it. Hope that help. You should move the IOT article to draft, as it is chronically bad. scope_creep^Talk 15:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd add a bit here. Look at the references again. There is two references to company sites, [3] and [4]. They are the worst references. For consultancies like them, the average max-age of a web page is 6 weeks. It used to be that, a decade ago. I think it shorter. So they are useless as references. They are very very low-quality references. They're spam links for the company and should never be used, in this situation. scope_creep^Talk 15:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've spent some time looking at this article too. While it is nuanced for someone new to AfC, expanding the references shows that two of them are from a blog on a supplier's website (www.avsystem.com). Looking at the other edits by the author of the draft, they have been to add an entry for AVSYSTEM to a table in the article OMA LWM2M and to add a reference to the AVSYSTEM blog in TR-069. Some of the other references in the new article mention AVSYSTEM. The company sells IoT management software. If you re-read the draft with that in mind it is clear that this is a case of WP:ADMASQ. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Good catch! I did not notice that. Félix An (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Taking a look at this one: Draft:Eric Maikranz. Looking at it, it has a reference to, <ref>{{cite book|title=Amazon|isbn=9812329455}}</ref> It is entirely unsuitable to reference to any shop, never mind Amazon for a book reference. Google Books or more accurately, Worldcat is the correct reference for a book. Using the correct venue in a specific instance is the way it is done. But there is never any case that you need link to a consumer book site. If somebody links to Amazon or some other shop it is promotion and fails WP:PROMO. Academic sources first. Good work in identifying that it needed extra sources. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Help

I need help how can I write my article in Wikipedia?? Kingmontor (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kingmontor please read Help:Your first article Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no, I'm off the project!

I haven't been actives on the project for a number of years, which I only recalled because the helper script informed me that I am not on the participant page. I'd be happy to consider participating again. Dovid (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Dovid, hello friend. You can reapply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Also, just an FYI, new sections normally go at the bottom of talk pages. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Helper script next

Hi everyone! I very recently joined the Project and have been carefully observing how things are done. Hopefully I can chip in towards reducing the backlog a bit. I have the following question to start with: is there a way to jump to the next submission in line without having to go back to the category page? Thank you! PK650 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no "next" feature, just the "random in cat" feature. While the pages are ordered in the category by timestamp, that's not a true "order" that can necessarily be navigated when you're on a specific page. Primefac (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

See T200703 for some problems with Random In Category. That being said, I bet that somebody who likes javascript could whip up something that adds {{AfC button}} to every page in draft space. That would basically be the "Next" button PK650 is looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned, after reviewing a draft there is a link to "next random submission" in various categories. Genuinely not sure how useful such a link (because we wouldn't do it as a button) would be. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@PK650 Most folk start their reviewing career with low hanging fruit, obvious decisions. If a draft looks too complex for whatever your current skill level is, close that draft and move on to another. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. I guess I grew too accustomed to the page curation tool... PK650 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Randall Goodden

Please be aware that the editor whose article this is is (not me though I am credited as creator, they overwrote a redirect, that's an MW foible) has confirmed on my talk page that they are the subject of this article. You will see that they and I have had a lengthy discussion about who they are, and why they both said they were Goodden and were not Goodden. The editor's talk page is instructive too

Note that there are three versions of the draft

I have recused myself from reviewing this material on the basis that I am standing too close to it. I would now find it difficult to review in any constructive manner Fiddle Faddle 18:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have Rejected the long version of the draft. I did not review it in detail, and it is too long, but I did not need to review it in detail to see that it is duplicated, which means that its submitter didn't review it before submitting it. I did not review the two short drafts either, because they have not been submitted for review, but it appears to me that the two short drafts do not establish biographical notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 02:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

When reviewing the other two it is worth noting some 13 year old history:

• 03:45, 28 September 2008 C.Fred talk contribs deleted page Randall Goodden (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) (thank)
• 03:38, 28 September 2008 CIreland talk contribs deleted page Randall Goodden (G12: Blatant copyright infringement) (thank)

This leads to a conclusion that this article has been wished for over many years.

As an experiment I tried to find sourcing as if to write this article. Sometimes a challenge is interesting. I was forced to conclude that I could not find anything worth using. YMMV Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Interested editors may see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Randall Goodden and leave whatever opinion is appropriate in their view Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Surname list with only two people on it

I am pretty sure Draft:Camaso should be declined but am not sure what to put as the reason? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Too late, already accepted by someone. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Anushka Sen

This is re-creation of an oft deleted article and draft. Please will a reviewer with admin goggles see how closely it resembles the deleted items? Deletion record of articles and drafts is on the draft talk page. I've chosen not to make a review. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Significantly more references than the last time. G4 wouldn't apply were it created in article space. No comment on its suitability, though. Primefac (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Since the article title is admin-salted, I would advise someone to go to Deletion Review and ask that the article title be downgraded to ECP-protected, to permit a reviewer to accept the draft if it satisfies acting notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

No need, done (protection, not review). Primefac (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Primefac. The reviewer should look at the previous deletion discussions and should evaluate whether the subject has had more recent experience that satisfies acting notability. In my opinion, a review of the references themselves is less important than a review of the filmography, but that is only my opinion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad this has now reached a solid acceptance. It has taken a long time. Each prior submission was too early in her career. Thank you Kashmorwiki for running with it and Robert McClenon for working to assess it. I've been very concerned about prior versions and felt unable to review this version in case I was biased against it. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Image Copyright Question, sort of

I would like a sanity check on a conclusion that I have drawn. I reviewed a draft BLP, and declined it as non-neutral. The draft had a picture of the subject. The picture is in Commons, and was uploaded to Commons by the submitter. The source of the picture is the website of the subject of the BLP. Will someone verify my conclusion, which is that the submitter either has permission from the subject to copy the picture, or they do not have permission. If they do not have permission, then there is a copyvio problem on Commons with the picture. What is more likely is that they do have permission, in which case there almost certainly is a conflict of interest. The "almost certainly" is that there is no problem if the image on the website has already been released either into the public domain or under CC-BY-SA. Is my understanding correct? (I think it is much more likely to be a conflict of interest than to be a case of copying the image without permission, but that is just my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Likely both. If the image source does not have a free license, then we need evidence of permission to license the image from the copyright holder. The COI editor may have gotten permission "for use on Wikipedia" or some other incompatible terms. This is a common occurrence. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Second question

Hi again! I don't mean to ruffle any feathers by posing the following question, but please can someone help me understand? Why are we declining non-notable articles instead of rejecting them outright? I'm seeing a few articles that would obviously be deleted at AfD being declined several times (giving the submitter hope that all they have to do is resubmit with some improvement), but nobody appropriately making the judgment to outright tell people the subject is just non-notable at this time. Are reviewers not looking up sources outside the purview of the article itself to gauge notability? Am I looking at this through an NPP lens or am I way off base? I.e. where do people draw the line between false hope and actually saying there is no chance something will be accepted? Thank you for explaining this. PK650 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you need to do WP:BEFORE for drafts. You just evaluate the citations and external links currently in the draft. And the draft's author can always add more citations then resubmit. While this may give false hope, it can also work in the author's favor. If obscure sources exist, the author can put in the leg work and add them, and get the draft passed. I almost never reject, unless it's vandalism or something similar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@PK650 - @Novem Linguae put it absolutely in the correct way - NPP and AfC are two totally different pairs of shoes. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

First, I completely agree with Novem Linguae regarding why most of us just decline - it is really easy to look at a draft and say "not enough refs". That being said, if you are willing to put in the time and effort to determine that there is no-way-no-how that the draft would ever be acceptable, then there is no issue with rejecting it. I think most of us would rather go the "easier" route (and who knows, as NL says there might exist good sources that are not online). Primefac (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, first, User:PK650, you are looking at it through an NPP lens, which is not wrong. Second, if you were at NPP, would you move it to draft space, or write an AFD? You should only reject if you would write an AFD. Even then, it might be less bitey to decline. Third, in my opinion, there are inadequate (almost non-existent) guidelines for rejection, so that rejection is often controversial. As a result, many reviewers reject only when it is clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@PK650 I try very hard to find something to accept in a draft before I move in the opposite direction. I want to accept articles, not just obvious accepts but I believe we improve Wikipedia by giving serious consideration to the borderline ones.

I decline if I can see that more work should bear acceptance fruit. If I decline I try very hard not to re-review, though there can be exceptions, usually a glorious change to make acceptance obvious.

I reject if I perceive there to be no hope. There are various reasons for this. I can't codify them easily Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent I don't recommend trying to codify all of the reasons why there would be no hope, just as I don't recommend trying to codify all of the species of beans that I can buy at a bodega or in a souk or from a witch. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon There are witches? I have a cow. Can I get magic beans?

I agree. There are more types of ordure than one can shake a stick at. I believe if something is rejectable it is ejectable also. A few are ejectable on sight, some take longer and grip onto the exit door frame this discussion is one such Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad idea for helping backlog - don't WP:BITE

I'm trying to figure out how to best attack the backlog. Obviously some of it is my own fault, because I'm specifically avoiding articles by "some submitters" for a variety of reasons, but that's beside the point. Since we now have a list of participants with particular specialties, should we start assigning or tagging them to look at particular articles? Obviously that isn't to say that someone else can't make the right judgement call or lacks the understanding of notability concerns, but in the borderline cases or the articles that are outside of our particular wheelhouse, it sounds quicker to have someone with expertise make the quick judgement call rather than have us hem-and-haw about it. Keep in mind I'm only spitballing here. I know that everyone has a lot on their plate, and that (like me) you largely don't want to be pinged to do extra work, etc. If anyone has other ideas (or, for some reason, supports my proposal) let's start thinking about it. Bkissin (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Your post is a little bit general. Feel free to mention the specific topic and articles here that you would like a second opinion on. I think most of us would be happy to take a look. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Bkissin is not asking for a second opinion of some topics or articles - what is needed is (generally) quite simple: More engagement=more reviewing. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Community thoughts about Draft:Munaf Kapadia

Hello! All, I created a stub Munaf Kapadia that was draftified by @CommanderWaterford. they also put an {{advert}} maintenance tag on it which I don't understand why, because the stub at its current state tells facts about the person and there is nothing wrong in the tone. There are plenty of news articles about the person in reliable mainstream newspapers and magazines. The content can be expanded as there are sources available. I am posting here to know the consensus of the community about the stub. What made that stub unworthy of staying in the mainspace? Dial911 (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dial911 You are of course absolutely free to ask for third opinions but I already explained it to you on the draft itself. Creating first an article about a perhaps not notable book and after this one gets tagged creating directly an article for an author without adding those several independent reviews you mentioned are existing raises my eyebrows. So I gave you the opportunity to add sources for your article instead of directly nominating it for deletion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford, so can't an editor create a stub and leave it for others or (themselves) to be worked upon later? The stub I created is backed up by reliable mainstream media sources, that significantly covered the subject. Isn't that enough for that stub to be remained in the mainspace until we expand it? Dial911 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Dial911 - "So can't an editor create a stub and leave it for others ... to be worked upon later?" That depends on whether the stub satisfies notability, verifiability, and neutrality. If so, yes. If not, it can be draftified once or nominated for deletion. So before creating a stub in mainspace, have some confidence that it will survive in mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I was confident, that is why I created it. Dial911 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

It is currently an advert and I've it back to draft. scope_creep^Talk 14:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

User:scope creep, that was an improper draftification. Draftspace, and AfC, is optional. As Dial911 moved it back it mainspace, move warring it back to draft is not ok. You should have AfD-ed it. Likely, it would be SNOW deleted. Bureaucracy pedantry do you say? No, AfC should not be guardsmen to Wikipedia. AfC should be help and advise. If Dial911 doesn’t want help and advice, he shouldn’t be bullied. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

User:scope creep - I agree with User:SmokeyJoe if he is saying that draftifying an article a second time is move-warring. The editor who draftifies an article the second time sometimes says, "But I don't want it deleted. It should be in draft space." Yes. And Move to Draft is a valid result of an AFD, and AFD is the proper community forum to decide whether an article should be in article space or draft space. Yes, AFD is overloaded; but, no, that doesn't mean that reviewers should bypass consensus processes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I will happily nominate it for Afd, if anybody wants to move it back to mainspace. This situation should never have arisen, and Afd is already overloaded. It plain, however many references it has, that it is an advert. There is no encyclopedic content within. We really need to grow as an organisation, and recognise that these types of articles are a huge timesink on everybody, that should otherwise be spent on developing real encyclopedic knowledge for humanity. I'm sick to death of spam stuff scope_creep^Talk 14:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep Doesn't it meet WP:BASIC? It has reliable sources that cover him significantly, it clearly passes GNG. If language is the problem, why don't you add your input and make it 'real' encyclopedic. That would save you from falling sick of spam stuff. Dial911 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford, @Scope creep, @SmokeyJoe guys I would like to know your thoughts because I really want to understand where my judgement as an AfC and NPR is lacking. This stub states just facts about him, with inline citations proving the claims. If it was submitted via AfC, I wouldn't have any reason to reject the draft because it has multiple reliable mainstream media articles that significantly talk about him. Dial911 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dial911 I'm happy to move back if you would prefer to have a wider discussion at AfD than be locked away in draft/AfC? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic sorry, I did not understand. Are you saying you would move it back to mainspace? Sorry. Dial911 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Yes Dial911 if you want it in mainspace (any by comments above sent to AfD) then I think that is your choice as per SmokeyJoe above and scope_creep has indicated that are happy with that as well. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Please do that. If this stub isn't worthy of staying in mainspace then I don't know what is. Please do that. Let's take it there so that more editors can give their inputs as a community rather than individuals doing what they want. Dial911 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dial911  Done KylieTastic (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic cool. thanks! Dial911 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dial911 What do you mean by "individuals doing what they want" ? CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford I meant AfD would be a suitable place for discussion. That is it. Dial911 (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• The article includes ten references, each of which is somewhat hard to explain why it is a non-independent promotional source, but they are. Experienced Wikipedians can tell quickly, as there are many cues, both in the reference and in the material written into the prose. This is why newcomers don’t understand the reviewers. I think the solution is to point the writers at WP:THREE, tell the author/proponent that the onus is on them to nominate the three best GNG-meeting sources. It is reasonable to ask a reviewer to examine and critique three sources, but not more, not ten for sure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple Draftification

Some reviewers will move an article from article space to draft space twice or even three times. That is move-warring. I have written an essay on the subject, WP:Repeated Draftification. Since it is only my essay, some reviewers still think that they have an obligation to be gatekeepers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Inline citations. Must?

Can we please check. Is the following, as written, false?

Comment: Biographies of living persons must be referenced using inline citations. Please refer to the material there and at Help:Footnotes to reformat the draft accordingly. SITH (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For reference, WP:BLP says:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Ping SITH. User:StraussInTheHouse

note challenged or likely to be challenged.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no significant conflict between the two statements. When you say "challenged or likely to be challenged" to me the only things being excluded are BLUESKY-type information. Thus, we can generalize to "BLPs must have inline citations" as SITH stated. Primefac (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Ditto. There is very little information about a person one can verify without sources, so almost everything should be cited. In a sense, a draft submission and review are the sourcing "challenge" here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Lie-to-children? It seems a good idea, to tell draft writers that they “must”. I accepted SITH’s draft months after he left that comment, which cause the author to improve it. Certainly, a BLP is better with in-line citations. Maybe WP:BLP should catch up? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hey SmokeyJoe, Primefac and Hellknowz, hope you're all doing well. I'm not sure which of my AFC review comments you're referring to but I'd be happy to take another look if there's something wrong. In the abstract sense, I've always considered the verifiability bar to be higher for BLPs than other articles, as the guideline says We must get the article right (emphasis not mine). The underlying reason is because BLPs are far more likely to have sticky PR (and potentially legal) risks as was seen in the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. Choosing a reliable source and putting it right next to the relevant sentence in the article mitigates any such risks, so unless an assertion is widely known to be true or true by definition, in a BLP, it's best cited inline as it allows the reader to quickly attribute assertions. Please feel free to ping me back with a link to the draft in question and I'll do what I can to help! Many thanks, SITH (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey ((u|StraussInTheHouse}}, you are just the author of the comment that I often see and wanted to ask about. I think this comment overstates the WP:BLP rule, but I also can see it is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Heck

• Edit: also, what the heck's happened here? I've been pottering about here and there on-wiki but been a but busy IRL but it looks like we've got another February 2009 orphans category. Should be in a position to edit more soon so I'm happy to help co-ordinate a backlog drive if there's a need for it. SITH (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see anything unusual, what do you see? Primefac (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Update/shameless plug of WP:UPSD, a script to detect unreliable sources

It's been about 14 months since this script was created, and since its inception it became one of the most imported scripts (currently #54, with 286+ adopters).

Since last year, it's been significantly expanded to cover more bad sources, and is more useful than ever, so I figured it would be a good time to bring up the script up again. This way others who might not know about it can take a look and try it for themselves. I would highly recommend that anyone doing citation work, who writes/expands articles, or does bad-sourcing/BLP cleanup work installs the script.

The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely a key tool for any AfC/NPP reviewers  Great!. KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I personally prefer the alternative User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Highlighting in green is fundamentally misguided. If you have a source like The Lancet, it can still fail WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Beeing in green makes it look like the source isn't problematic, and the only way to check if it is actually non-problematic is to actually review it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Mor Moharaan

I would like a confirmation that I handled this one appropriately. This is a future Indian TV show. There had been a draft, and then an article was created in article space. I declined the draft, both because the article already existed, and because the TV show has not aired, and so it does not pass television notability, but included a note to resubmit when the show broadcast. I then PROD'd the article as not yet aired and so not yet notable. The article was then deleted as G5 as the contribution of a sockpuppet. The sockpuppet had edited the draft, but the draft had originally been created by an IP, who was likely the sockmaster, but it isn't worth asking for another check. So the draft is still declined. I left an AFC comment on the draft saying that it has been worked on by a sockpuppet, and if it is resubmitted, a reviewer should please check whether the submitter is in good standing as well as whether the show has broadcast. It is after all likely that another sock will either resubmit the draft or try to move it to article space. When the show airs, a neutral editor can submit or promote it.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• User:Mz7 G5-ed the article, and User:AmandaNP blocked the sockmaster. I would ask them if the draft is G5 compliant. Let them discover the IP in the history and make their decision; they are not allowed to comment publicly on the IP. You may comment, and are encouraged to do so if you think there is behavioural evidence, beyond this draft, linking the IP to the socking accounts, but they won't confirm it back to you. I don't think there is much point in leaving comments about sockpuppetry anywhere but for the involved admins or at WP:SPI. I would encourage the IP to register, using an IP-welcome template.
  The decline per TOOSOON, or similar seems reasonable. Note that good GNG-meeting sources means it can be mainspaced before airing, possible but usually not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• In my opinion, if a draft is declined because of exists, and the page is later deleted, then the decline should be undone and the draft re-evaluated to take into account the fact that exists no longer applies. In this particular instance, I see the IP has already resubmitted so it's a moot point.

As to the issue of said IP resubmitting, I'm on the fence. If the IP isn't blocked for block evasion or LTA-related issues, then there's no real way to say who they are (any socks editing the page could potentially be MEAT or otherwise uninvolved) and I would probably just review as normal. Primefac (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for Creation tag question

When a draft is accepted by a reviewer via the Articles for Creation accept script (which is something that we always want to be able to do), a WikiProject template for the AFC project is put on the talk page. That is one of the things that the script does. My question is whether that label should be added if the draft was in AFC and was then moved to article space without using the script. This sometimes happens, as we have just discussed, if a reviewer closes the window while the script is running. It also happens if an experienced editor who is not a reviewer moves the draft. (My question is about cases where we agree that the page should be in article space. That is, a reviewer should have accepted it if they reviewed it. I am not asking about questionable moves, which are an entirely different question.)

The specific sequence is as follows. There was a draft, and there was a redirect from the title to a list article. I reviewed the draft and decided that it should be accepted. I put a G6 tag on the redirect. I then did other things, and then went back to finish the acceptance. While I was looking elsewhere, an administrator had speedily deleted the redirect, which is of course what the G6 was requesting, and then moved the draft to article space. Voila! That is what I had decided should be done. The only question is: Should I put the {{WikiProject Articles for Creation}} template on the talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it. The script does not define Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to add. To comment on the previous, while the instructions are not defined by the script, it is written from the perspective of using the script (including "if you do this manually, have fun doing all of the extra work"); whether this means one must add the AFC talk page template is up for debate, but I think it's reasonable that if the page was accepted via the AfC process (regardless of who moves the pages) there should be a talk template indicating that. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I saw one draft today that met WP:POLITICIAN and another that met WP:ACADEMIC, but both had poor sourcing. Either no sources or all self-published sources. In mainspace, I think we would just add a maintenance tag then mark as reviewed. In AFC, are we supposed to reject using the reason "v - submission is improperly sourced", or can we let these through? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae If they clearly meet those SNG you can approve them and tag them for their sourcing (since they later need to be reviewed by NPPs) or (much better) add the sources you yourself found before. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the above, though my personal caveat is what it would take to improve. If it's a "quick fix" of adding a reference or two, then I would likely err on the side of accepting (potentially leaving a note on the talk page as to my rationale). However, if it "clearly meets the SNG" but is unsourced, entirely primary sources, or otherwise has questions about the content itself then I would decline as v or ilc (which is one of the only times ilc should be used). Primefac (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | May 2021, Volume 7, Issue 5, Numbers 184, 188, 197, 198 Online events: New: May Mays | Mental Health Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman See also: Wikimedia District of Columbia: 100 DC Women contest Wikimedia CEE Spring: Central and Eastern European Women contest The Wikipedia Library: #1Lib1Ref Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Speak for Itself

I have written an essay, WP:Speak for Itself, about which you are welcome to comment and where improvements are welcome, provided that the meaning is not changed. Since this is an essay, you may agree or disagree, but it should state a viewpoint as well as possible, which is that drafts and articles should make it clear how the subject is notable. If you agree, you are welcome to cite it in declining a draft or in requesting improvements to a draft.

Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It is pretty short. How about adding some examples. I'm sure there is plenty about. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep@Robert McClenon I think I'd like three examples.

1. A clear pass
2. A borderline case where judgement is required
3. A clear fail

All very brief, and probably done with permalinks Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Scope creep, User:Timtrent - Okay. I will update the essay as I do my regular reviewing, and will add the next examples that I come across. I will give two examples of fails, one at AFC and one at AFD. If either of you sees any clear examples, you may add them. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I understake to do so. Currently at AfD is Munaf Kapadia which may or may not be edited to show notability, but whcih does not yet shine a spotlight on why the gentleman is notable. I see that as a borderline case at present.

By no means my best work, but Elsie Reasoner Ralph shows immediate notability as "The first female war correspondent in US history". That article needs expansion, but it is hard to find useful ways of expanding it

Clear fails are harder. An early permalink from a current clear pass is likely to be useful here. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:23, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Can an another editor submit someone's draft?

Can an another editor submit someone's draft to move his own draft into an article?

This scenario will be look like this: Editor A, who crated his own draft, will be submitted by Editor B then Editor A's draft will be sent for a review to become an article.

Is it possible to do this action? Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 03:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahthga Yram, hello friend. Can you link the two drafts please? Short answer is... if the drafts are on the same topic, I recommend submitting the better one. Also, your signature is a little confusing, you may want to look into simplifying it. Hope that helps, happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please wait. I'm focusing on the WP:AN right now. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 03:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, response on your answer on my question is: Is it allowed to send a draft for review by us who are not the actual creators of it?
• Hello once again. Sorry for my signature though, I got 'hooked' with a popular RPG. Starting to Hate Noelle (Needs Zhongli Too Bad or Hapith is NOT Taiwan's ballistic missile ) 04:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Ahthga Yram Might I suggest that you become more familiar with working here before doing any such thing? You have left a trail of work with faulty MfD nominations which others are having to clear up.

  It is allowed because Wikipedia drafts are not the property of anyone except Wikipedia. It is considered unusual, though. It is polite to consult with the creating editor, the more so if the draft is under active development Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Max Polykov Submission For Mainspace

Unclear if this is the correct place to post this, but I am checking in on the submission of page for Ukrainian billionaire Max Polyakov to main space on status on Wikipedia. He seems to meet the relevance threshold, given his prominence in the aerospace industry and other businesses ... but perhaps i'm missing someting? Thank you! https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:Max_Polyakov — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kickzzz (talk • contribs)

Kickzzz, the draft has been submitted and is awaiting review. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kickzzz additionaly to what Primefac said there are currently more than 5,000 drafts waiting for a review, please be patient. I am sure sooner or later your draft will be reviewed, too. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kickzzz echoing :@CommanderWaterford. Though it is worth mentioning the Polykov just acquired a major South African space company (Firefly). Elohsee (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:British Beekeepers Association - looks ready to me

I'd like to accept it, or I'd like someone to accept it (no ego here), but see the comment about a history merge from @Robert McClenon, and note that British Beekeepers Association is a redirect with a substantial declared history.

I have no idea how to handle this, nor, I imagine, will any new reviewers. Please would a reviewer with the requisite skills both handle it and document how they have done it so we might learn?

Unless, of course, folk disagree with acceptance. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

​ I would not call that substantial, and thus I have G6'd the article. Feel free to accept. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

As further clarification regarding my thoughts on the matter, the page creator of the draft was the same one that created the article. Additionally, the content of the article was a single sentence and an infobox, which is not a huge amount of information that would require keeping of that content (though I will say that the "same creator" part is the principle reason why I simply deleted). Primefac (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting that out. Another one leaves the queue. I see what you mean with your thoughts around it Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 12:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. That sheds some more light on questions about history, and history merges. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/5 months ago

I've tried to trim this category during the last few days before the floodgates of hundreds of drafts comes from the 4 months category. Anyone want to help out with this category? Eternal Shadow Talk 23:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been home and awake for literally 10 hours this last week (and not much more for the past few), but I have 5mo on my list of things to tackle this weekend. Primefac (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I have been doing about a dozen this weekend from the Category:AfC pending submissions by age/5 months ago - perhaps I can motivate @Timtrent or @Novem Linguae or @Bkissin to do 1-2 more ... ;-) (reminds me on the Ice Bucket Challenge :) ) CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll give it a go Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had, and am continuing to have, a decent go. But surely we have got to the point where we are in need of an old style Backlog Drive, the last one of whcih was in June 2014. While some reviews were less than stellar there were checks and balances that attempted to counter that

Our backlog is a terrible disincentive to new editors

We have many new reviewers and this might be the spur they need. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 06:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

👍 CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I have slogged through the 5 month category. My approach has been to accept thise that are borderline, with a comment on their talk pages to that effect. The community will make a better job of them that the creating editor has managed in the past five months. I have skipped those I feel incompetent to review, commented on some. I have declined those that were obvious declines. As I was working the category refilled, as it will, and I left it with a dozen I feel unable to review well.

I may do a few more today.

For new reviewers the oldest items in any category are sorted first, the newest(!) last. Just do your best. No-one expects perfection, but we all expect errors to be a small percentage of the work we do. And yes, experienced reviewers make errors, too. The trick is to make an error once only.

What grieves me is that they have arrived in that antique category at all. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I've done 7 more from that category the remaining two are problematic. Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Replacing Article by Draft ?

I have an interesting situation. A draft has been submitted which would be a C-Class article if accepted. The only problem is that there is a stub article about the subject. So I can't accept the draft, because the stub is already there. Will it be permitted to copy-paste the draft into the stub article, and note in the edit summary that it was copied from the draft, and then redirect the draft to the article, thus preserving the history in the draft? By the way, the articles are Draft:Gerald Morin and Gerald Morin. I know that there are paragraphs in the draft that are not directly about Morin but about the cause of the Metis people, and those paragraphs should be removed from the article because they can be put somewhere else (if not already in the encyclopedia).

It is relatively rare for someone to submit a draft about an existing subject that is much more complete than the article. It occasionally happens, and it has happened with Morin. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The stub is a nothing. I'd swap them and then turn the swapped stub into a redirect. BD2412 T 19:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon You have presumably considered flagging the draft to be merged into the stub, and encouraged the editor to perform that work? I have done this from time to time. Were I interested in the topic I would consider performing the merge myself, though I have not yet done so. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

ROFLMAO Of course you have! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Much of the draft is unacceptably promotional in tone. It definitely shouldn't be moved over the existing stub, and any merge should be done with considerable care. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So then I tried to apply the {{npov}} tag to it, and was unable to find the tag in the Twinkle menu, because User:Justlettersandnumbers had already applied the tag. I have deleted a few sections of the draft that are not about Morin but about the Metis movement. So that is a reason to leave the nothing stub temporarily in place. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Drafts actively under review

To become a Participant, I am advised to "browsing through the submissions and help pages and observing the work of the reviewers", all right. Is there a search-option or a category to find drafts that are currently active? -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

DePiep, hello friend. You can use Special:NewPagesFeed to browse drafts. Just click on the radio button "Articles for Creation", then click "Set filters" and adjust the filters. There are also some pages that try to group submissions. You can browse these at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submissions. On that submissions tab at the top, you can click submissions, category, list, or sorting. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone please clarify...

Can somebody tell me why I'm getting tooltip pop-ups regarding the AFCH stuff!?!? I don't get it... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 06:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi CPLANAS1985 do you have it enabled in your preferences? In Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets "Editing" section "Yet Another AFC Helper Script". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see it anywhere... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  KylieTastic You'll have to elaborate because I can't and don't see it anywhere... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  @CPLANAS1985: It might help to elaborate on what you mean by "tooltip pop-ups regarding the AFCH". Are you talking about a message box with something like the text AFCH error: user not listed? That is caused by not being on the participants list (you aren't) AND having the AFC Helper Script gadget enabled. I have no trouble finding the gadget setting in my own preferences by following KylieTastic's special preferences link above and searching for the string "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", so you may want to try again to locate it. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  Worldbruce Yes, it does appear and I can't find anything of it in Preferences... CPLANAS1985 (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hi CPLANAS1985 all I can think to do is show an image of it in the preferences [5]. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  Okay... I found it, under the "Gadgets"... And yes, it's enabled... Thanks for the help!!! But what exactly does that do!?!? CPLANAS1985 (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hi CPLANAS1985 glad we got there. As for what it does... if your an AfC participant (WP:AFC/P) then on drafts or user pages it adds a review option to the "More" top menu allowing us to accept, decline, reject, comment, submit. Also apparently if your not on the list it has annoying pop-ups! I'm not sure if this is an already reported issue or not https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/issues. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving a Redirect to Accept a Draft ?

Until about a week ago, I sometimes accepted a draft when there was already a redirect at the target title in article space, by moving the redirect to user space, then accepting the draft, then tagging the redirect for speedy deletion. However, admin User:Liz has asked me not to do that, because I didn't create the redirect that I am tagging for deletion in user space. She said that if the redirect is in the way of my acceptance, I should tag it for G6 and then accept the draft. I tried to explain the disadvantages of doing this, and to ask if there was another way, and have not gotten an answer from her.

There are two problems with tagging the redirect for G6 and waiting for an admin to delete it. The first is that G6 is among the less speedy of the speedy deletion types, and can wait a few hours to 24 hours before the redirect is deleted. In the meantime, I may have moved on to some other review task. I know. I know. There is no deadline. The second is that, if I tag a redirect for G6, often the admin honors my request and moves the draft into article space. Duh. That is what was requested. But, duh, if the admin isn't an AFC reviewer, they may move it by moving it, which doesn't use the accept script, and then the manual cleanup is tedious.

Since I have evidently been asked not to move redirects into user space in this way, is there another way that I can accept drafts that are blocked by a redirect, other than letting an admin do a manual move, after which I can clean it up? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That is the correct proceedure, but I agree it can be really long winded; and there's no garentee that an admin will move the draft, or not use the script. The problem with moving the redirect is that it can be super confusing to anyone looking up the history of the redirect, especially if there is something behind it. The sad news is either ping an admin (I don't mind occasional pings to do this sort of cleanup), or get the mop? I suppose you could move the redirect to a disambiguation or suitable redirect to the topic and then redirect it to the draft and have it as a round-robin move (and as such not require the deletion at all), but I feel that's also a pretty poor way to deal with this. I feel it might be a good question for WP:AN to see what admins feel about the situation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I came also into this trouble a couple of times and honestly I still do not see the problem to G6 the redirect later in userspace, I also did not receive any answer from Liz so indeed this is something which needs to be figured out.. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gotten lip from admins in the past for even asking for a G6 to move a draft. Not recently, thankfully, but it's another one of those things! Bkissin (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

At least that particular instance, it looks like some kind of misunderstanding. The declining edit summary makes it seem like the decliner thought you wanted to redirect to the draft or didn't understand that you intended to accept the draft once the G6 is done (or maybe doesn't realize that you can't accept until the G6 is done since the script won't let you). Probably worth a ping or talk page note to clarify in case similar G6 requests are being declined in the same way. The rationale seemed to make sense to me, but perhaps elaborating the rationale from "Promising draft Draft:Cynthia Graham Hurd" to "Make room to accept promising draft Draft:Cynthia Graham Hurd, which is ready." Or something like that? I dunno, like I said, it made sense to me, but maybe that's cuz I have the perspective of someone in AfC. -2pou (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a really good question. Should we take some time to try to hash out a protocol here for quickly promoting drafts that are blocked by redirects with page history? I've seen some threads on this talk page before that have said that moving the redirect is OK, but it sounds like Liz declining these is changing the status quo a bit. Is there a replacement protocol? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible WikiEd issue

Hello all! Working through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/10 days ago and stumbled across several articles that don't seem to fit in my view:

• Draft:Regulatory Capture and its impact on the environment
• Draft:Environmental Implications of the Dominant Social Paradigm in the United States
• Draft:Environmental justice issues in Columbus, Ohio
• Draft:Governance of Urban Garden Spaces
• Draft:Policy Brokers in Environmental Governance
• Draft:Nonmarket Valuation in Forestry Policy
• Draft:Environmental efect of concentrated animal feeding operations
• Draft:Loop Learning in Environmental Decision-making
• Draft:Regulation of Endangered Marine Life

All seem to be Environmentally related, but there doesn't seem to be a connection listed by the users to an existing WikiEd class. I'm not sure whether to decline because they read like essays, decline because of possible OR, or what. (regardless, I'm sure I'm going to invite the ire of whoever submitted the articles, since I'm probably getting in the way of their grade). I think for some of the content, it could be merged into a larger existing article, but the tone is super-wonky on a lot of these articles. Bkissin (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• I had noticed them, tided up a few, I had wondered at the time if related to Earth Day the day before. They do stand out as odd and likely linked. You could leave some messages asking if part of a WIkiEd or similar.... I just left as I've just run out of motivation recently. KylieTastic (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Tell me about it KylieTastic! I'm feeling it again too. I need to be better about not overworking myself on this backlog. Best of luck and I hope you can relax a little. Bkissin (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup Bkissin I do wish that more of the 553 "active" reviewers (+ 21 probationers) could just do a few more a month, and get more people to join just to do a few. With only 41 doing an average of one or more a day last month and only 192 doing any.... The total number of reviews in the last month (6405) is equivalent to all active and probationers doing 11.2 reviews a month. This project would work better with the majority doing a little bit more rather than a minority trying to do so much. Anyway I had a cooks blow-torch turn into a fire ball tonight and it was a choice of house or hand burn (while getting to the door to chuck it out).... So I still have a house but I also have a lot of pain so I'm off to bed. KylieTastic (talk)

Yikes! Could you be careful, please! ;) Get well soon KylieTastic Bkissin (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Bkissin - Without looking at the drafts, I can say that I have seen similar issues before, with multiple submissions from one course that has not registered with WikiEd. I would recommend asking the submitters, in the decline message, who their instructor is; with nine drafts, it is likely that at least one of them will answer you. The instructor is very likely in violation of WikiEd policies and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines if the instructor expects the students to get their drafts accepted. With nine drafts, it is more likely than sometimes that at least one of them will tell you who the instructor is. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, good thinking Robert McClenon. I'll go ahead and put it in the decline notes and see what's going on. Bkissin (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I have put a note on those nine drafts. I see that most of them have been declined by User:Theroadislong as essays, and one as duplicating an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of them look like essay's but some of them look like real article but only half completed. scope_creep^Talk 11:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• About the Draft:Environmental Implications of the Dominant Social Paradigm in the United States. It seems that the writer hasn't understood the meaning of the article's title ! For any country and any period, there exists a Dominant Social Paradigm. Therefore, the question is twofold: what is the current DSP there and now ; and what are it's implications. But we only get nothing's powder diluted in clear water syrup. Student, Fail ! Pldx1 (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Question About Previously Deleted Titles

This question is not mostly about Draft:Richard Burge, but that is an example of the issue. There was an article, and the article was deleted after AFD. Am I correct that this is not a basis for speedy-deleting the draft, although it would be a basis for speedy deletion of another article? Since drafts are not required to pass notability, except to be accepted, I understand that an AFD is a reason to decline or reject the draft. I also recommend putting an AFC comment on the draft referring to the AFD. If a draft was deleted at MFD, I would look at the MFD to see whether the same reason still applies. Is there agreement?

In this particular case, my recommendation is to leave the draft in its current declined state, and it probably will not be edited, since the submitter has been blocked, and then the draft will be deleted 103 years after the end of World War One. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I imagine LCCI will change to a real username. The draft needs to be compared against prior AfD only at acceptance time and I view your AFC Comments on it as 100% correct, thought part of our job is to notice the prior deletions.

My reply to you can be generalised very easily Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, if it's a draft then pointing out as a draft comment that it was previously AfDd is helpful, but then just move on let G13 clear up in due time... or let a rare miracle happen and the article is improved to show notability! KylieTastic (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Occasionally, after the draft is declined, it is resubmitted anyway, with little or no improvement. In that case, it can be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Non-Autobiography

I would like to mention a good-faith error that I occasionally see, and that another reviewer and I just encountered. Occasionally a draft is submitted on a person, and the user account name is the same or almost the same as the article title, but the author is not the subject. Instead, the author mistakenly used the name of the draft article as the name of their account. This can be noticed if the draft article refers to the death of the person, for instance. This occasionally happens, due to a new editor confusing a username with an article title. I don't have any particular advice about what to do other than be aware that it happens. For instance, see Draft:Ken Griffiths. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

AFC Script and Draft Categories

I was asked a question, and now after research, I will ask a question here about the AFC script. I looked at Draft:Bidoof, and made an AFC comment, which was to state that the title had previously been in article space, then was then cut down to a redirect. I did this by inserting {{cutdown}} into the draft. That is all that I did. User:Anomiebot then subst'd the template. I then got a message on my talk page from User:(Oinkers42) asking why I had de-activated two of the categories in the draft. I didn't think I had done that. On carefully examining the history, I see that the two draft categories were indeed deactivated by putting a colon in front of them, which should be done to article categories. Is that being done by the AFC script in adding the comment, or did I do something else unintended to cause this? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon yes this is done by the script (line 536. Not sure if it's already reported AFCH issues. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like this has been reported Issue 131 and has been fixed Pull 154 awaiting finalising. KylieTastic (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Oh yeah. I've since changed my mind about the specific approach used in that bit of code (although I admittedly directed that contributor to use it in the first place), but it won't be difficult to fix up. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Heather Heying

Hi @Primefac: Could you please remove that redirect, please. I plan to promote a draft into it. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

​  Done. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

0 days ago‎ +2?

Anyone have any idea why for all the ages in Category:AfC pending submissions by age they all appear to show the correct count apart from Category:AfC pending submissions by age/0 days ago that always shows as +2? very odd! KylieTastic (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find it in the logs, but I feel like this has been discussed before (either here or in another project I'm a part of) but I feel like it has something to do with database lag, specifically with that cat because it's the one that all newly-submitted drafts fall into. I could be totally mistaken and there are a couple of rogue pages that are categorized in 0-day without actually showing up in the cat (maybe a preload somewhere?). Primefac (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Jou Okitsu

Can someone please create a page for a man named Jou Okitsu? He was Japanese-America and a winner of a purple heart award in WWII.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.176.18 (talk)

This page is for discussing the operation of Articles for Creation only. You may make article suggestions at Requested Articles, though the backlog there is severe. If you have independent reliable sources about this man, the fastest thing to do is create a draft yourself using the process described here at WP:AFC. 331dot (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Over a million Purple Hearts were issued in World War II alone. That isn't enough to warrant a page. Even people who received far more prestigious awards aren't considered notable enough for articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library accessed references not allowed?

So, I saw a discussion further up on this page a couple days back about Draft:Richard Burge and how it was very obviously a COI made article from the original user that authored it. But since it looked like Burge was actually notable, I decided to take a challenge and improve it, while removing the puffery nonsense at the same time. Which resulted in changing the article from this originally to the current version. In working on the article, I discovered that a lot of the references that extensively discussed Burge were from decades past and not publicly available from a Google search. In comes The Wikipedia Library to the rescue and ProQuest in particular. I was able to find a number of articles from the 90's and his strongly media-discussed positions in the Countryside Alliance and the British Council. Thus, I added them into the article, removed any of the extraneous nonsense text and trimmed and formatted everything into a proper article, as it is now, before resubmitting it to AfC.

Which has then led to Fiddle Faddle declining the submission today for the following reason:

"It is generally accepted that references be inked to the precise medium, not a more general link. I am not about to chase them down. If you want the article to be accepted that is your job."

I presume this to be in regards to the Wikipedia Library references I used. Are such references not allowed on AfC? Is it that WP:PAYWALL does not apply to AfC submissions? That seems like a restriction that would limit the exhibition of notability for thousands of topics, as many are going to have references that can only be accessed through such non-public subscription sources, not to mention physical media in many cases. Silverseren^C 23:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be helpful to include the URL to the ProQuest article even if it is paywalled — for example, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1715157025 for reference #6 — to provide a direct link that at least verifies that there exists an article titled X published in Y, and to allow people with access to log in with a simple button click instead of manually looking up the details themselves. I think citing articles on ProQuest is fine in general. DanCherek (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, done. But that doesn't really address the broader issue. What if these were references to physical media sources? Silverseren^C 23:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: In general, WP:Offline sources are absolutely acceptable. It just leads to a more difficult review and a certain degree of WP:AGF. Newspapers.com is a valuable tool that the library provides, and you can cite the exact date, edition, and page number of a physical source. Unfortunately not everyone can easily verify that info, but if somone wanted to, they could do so. The same would apply to a textbook. -2pou (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: I think you are overthinking this. The objective is to make life easy for the potential readership. That a source is offline is fine. That a source is behind a paywall is fine. And that you have now added the relevant urls is excellent. What is required in a reference is the fullest information that will allow an interested party to chase it down and verify it. Where possible that should be directly to the publication if there is a direct online version, avoiding intermediary sites. That means that a newspaper's own site is alwasy preferable to a library version, for example.

The extra work you have done also makes it far easier for the AFC reviewer to come to a conclusion about the draft. Since I do not review a draft more than once that will be someone else. Different eyes are almost always better as reviews progress. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this was an inappropriate decline. I would probably accept the draft myself, but my AFC gadget no longer works correctly (womp womp). Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look at this one, and my Wikipedia Library version of ProQuest couldn't open all the articles. It said I didn't have access to some of them. Don't forget, one option is to move the article to mainspace yourself. You can do this if you are confident that it passes GNG. You might actually be in the best position to evaluate this since you have access to and have read all these sources. Do around 3 of the sources go into at least 3 paragraphs of detail about the subject? Barring other problems, an article that meets that criteria usually passes the significant coverage part of GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:, yeah, several of them are entirely about Burge and his life and history, particularly with the Countryside Alliance. I didn't realize there were different versions of access to the same databases through the TWL. Silverseren^C 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren. Here's some screenshots. The first is when I attempted to use the link in citation #6 (although I tweaked the URL a bit). The second is when I searched for the article title (it didn't appear in the search results). So you also have WL and it worked fine for you? Interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility of references is not any part of the notability criterion at WP:SIGCOV; nonetheless, editors trying to assess the quality of sourcing in an article have to work with the sources they can see, so accessibility matters. It is a pragmatic concern, in that accessible references will 'count more' than inaccessible ones, and if Timtrent is suggesting this is a matter of policy he is wrong, but it is advisable to do what you can to help reviewers see the strength of sources you provide. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Reviewers may WP:AGF WRT sources they cannot personally access. If there are questions about WP:SIGCOV a discussion with the author on the draft's talk page is an option. AfD is the place if a deep dive is needed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Kvng and others, for restating common sense about sources that a reviewer or reader cannot access. Paywalled sources are similar to foreign-language sources in that they are permitted, and the ability of a reader of the encyclopedia to click a link and see the sources is a nice-to-have rather than a requirement. A book that was printed in the nineteenth century and is in libraries and has not been scanned is also a valid source. (In a content dispute, I was dealing with an editor who thinks that foreign-language sources should be accompanied by a translation.) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cynthia Graham Hurd

This is basically a request for a fifth opinion. I think that I disagree with at least two editors in opposite directions. User:FloridaArmy submitted this draft, which was Rejected by User:Clarityfiend. I disagree with the rejection, and Clarityfiend stands by their decision, and we agree to disagree. FloridaArmy then revised the draft and resubmitted it with what I see as inadequate explanation, and I strongly disapprove of resubmitting a Rejected draft without discussion. In my opinion, resubmitting a Rejected draft with inadequate discussion degrades the value of Rejection, but that is my opinion. It was then declined (in my view, a more reasonable action) by User:Jeromeenriquez, and it has been resubmitted again.

My first thought is that I should submit the draft to Drafts for Discussion. There is no Drafts for Discussion. My second thought is to let the community decide. The only way that I know of to let the community decide is to Accept the draft, where it will get more attention in article space than in draft space, and any editor can then reasonably nominate it for Articles for Deletion.

What does anyone else think? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thabks for initiating this discussi9n Robert McClennon. We shoukd be governed by the very substantial coverage in reliable sources of her and her legacy including years after the shooting. I would also like to point out that despitw your repeated claim that I resubmitted withiut discussion, I merged as was suggested by the modt recent reviewer. It was reverted. I then restored thw draft and explained my resubmission stating "Merge was undone per wp:Weight. Not surprisingly. Needs its own entry as the perp Dylan Roof has and as other notable victims have". FloridaArmy (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no "very substantial coverage" after the crime, merely announcements of scholarships, a renaming in her honor and a foundation. She has no notability separate from the shooting. FloridaArmy has compared her to Rachel Scott. Scott has had books written about her, as well as a film. Hurd has not. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that User:Theroadislong accepted the draft, so it is now an article. Thank you. Any editor who thinks that the subject is not notable has the right to nominate it for deletion, and then the community will decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I find this article to have a complexity of issues. I scratched my head long and hard over it, and have made a mindful nomination at AfD.

Emotionally, I understand why the article has been created and been accepted. Intellectually I am not so sure. Thus I have chosen to let the community decide. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I haven't decided how to !vote in the AFD. I also thank User:Timtrent for taking this to the community. I thought that the community should decide, which required first and acceptance and then an AFD nomination. So there we are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think this is likely to be a protracted discussion, and potentially hard to close, as so often happens with people thrust into the white heat of the public gaze by the horror of their murder. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 05:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If any reviewer thinks a draft is acceptable, they may accept it. Anyone who disagrees is then welcome to send it to AfD where the final fate is decided by the community and we all learn from it. It looks like this is what ended up happening. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have always favoured the acceptance of borderline acceptable drafts. The community has greater wisdom than the individual, and our role is not to require perfection. AfD is then a wholly valid tool, though probably not if the proposer was also the accepting reviewer! (not this case!!) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - The proposer of what? Do you mean the nominator of the AFD, or the originator of the article? The first case sounds like Good Hand Bad Hand or multiple personality disorder. The second is approving one's own draft, which is permitted if one is allowed to create new articles, as reviewers are. You probably mean the nominator, and that would be weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Nominator for AfD. Apologies. I have a fairly weird brain. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 15:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The site is very hard to use.

I looked for a Wikipedia article on smoking posts (https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-behind-the-scenes/170598/barniers-last-throw-of-the-dice/). I got a notice that such an article does not exist but that I could request one be made using the link to this page (not submit a draft - just give the topic so someone in the know might see the request and write an article, so we can find out about the topic). Well, I can't find anything about requesting articles. Am I blind? No. So, IF such a resource exists, it sure is not made easy for people not in the know. Why can't the page say near the top something like, "This page is for people who want a new article. There are n options: 1) If you have a subject but no content, do/go to..., 2) If you have a subject about which you know something and want to write...
Wikipedia should be easy for 'everyman' to use, not so complicated that people just give up. 79.134.37.83 (talk) 06:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

You may request a new article at Requested Articles, although the backlog there is severe and it may be a long time, if ever, before your request is acted on. 331dot (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the assumption when one clicks a "red link" to a nonexistent article is that they would be interested in creating it, not merely asking someone else to. If you are interested in creating an account, there is a new user tutorial which would likely answer many of your questions about editing Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The limiting factor is not topics to write about, but people to write them. As such, it's not useful to us to have people suggest articles. "Oh, so and so thinks we should write about this. Great—I'll add it to the bottom of my thousand-entry list of things I'll never get around to." On Wikipedia you have to learn that if you want something done, you need to do it yourself. So why don't you try writing a draft on the given topic? — Bilorv (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Speak for Itself (More)

I have added a few examples to the essay Speak for Itself which we discussed a month ago. One of the examples is a case where there may be a Heymann keep of an article that didn't speak for itself. I nominated the article for deletion based on the article as written and a naive Google search. Another editor has found other sources. Sometimes the process works like this. I think that I should have nominated it for deletion. Occasionally an article only gets improved after it is nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Article Copied from Draft

What should I do if I am reviewing a draft and I see that the draft has been copied into article space exactly as it was in draft space by a different editor without attribution? I think that the subject of the article passes notability. (I know that it would be easier if the subject didn't pass notability, in which case the article can be nominated for deletion.) I am aware that what I am observing and describing is probably plagiarism. (It may instead be sockpuppetry, but that is not my question here.) My question is how to deal with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

If the draft was copied by another editor without attribution, and you don't think the article in the mainspace should be deleted immediately, the typical thing to do here is request a histmerge. This will move the history from the draft to the mainspace page, and turn the draft into a redirect. This can be requested with {{histmerge}} in the usual case, or otherwise at WP:RFHM if the situation is more complex for whatever reason. — The Earwig (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If the article is a direct copy of the draft, request a {{histmerge}}. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Under 5000!

Finally it's been a while - good job all! KylieTastic (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, I was watching the decrease too, but had just slipped outside for a glass of wine in the summerhouse. Onwards and downwards. Theroadislong (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

5mo is (almost) clear (just one left). Primefac (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | June 2021, Volume 7, Issue 6, Numbers 184, 188, 196, 199, 200, 201 Online events: New: Wiki Loves Pride | June Junes | Jewellers & Watchmakers Contest (Apr/May/Jun): Women in Europe contest Year-long campaign: Women's rights Continuing: #1day1woman Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage | Help us plan future events Become a member | Opt-out of notifications Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Do you guys G11 drafts?

Do you guys WP:G11 drafts? I don't, since AFC is technically supposed to be the place where COI promo type people can work on articles. But lots of AFC reviewers do. Thoughts? If I'm in the minority, maybe I'll start tagging them too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• Yes i do, but I give more leeway in draft than I would in main-space. However I often notice someone will G11 ones I AGF on shortly after so it makes little difference. Also as an admin mentioned on my talk page recently if there is personal information in it it's better to go for a G11. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

In the past, I have given the editor leeway to fix the prose, but if they've submitted a few times and it still contains more spam than the Green Midget Cafe in Bromley, then I might stick a G11 tag on, as it's obviously going nowhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that promotional drafts are often copyright violations (e.g. copied from press releases or the company's website), so it's always good to run them through Earwig's tool. If most of the article prose is a copyright violation it should be tagged as G12. firefly ( t · c ) 10:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

.... and that's generally good advice for any draft, full stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

My thought process for potential G11 nominations is the same for a potential G12 nomination: does the draft require a full and total rewrite to avoid the issue? If yes, it gets nominated. If there are a paragraph or three of reasonable prose, then no (for a G11 I might either leave it with a note or remove it myself, with G12 I'll excise the offending text). I do agree that G11 in draft space is much more lenient than G11 in article space, and we likely each have slightly different metrics as to where that line is, but it is done. Primefac (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I G11 them after they've been resubmitted as ordure once too often Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 13:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't do much AfC reviewing any more, but yeah, I G11 drafts. That's why it's G-something instead of A-something. And, as others have noted, my G11 meter is calibrated to be more lenient in draft space than in mainspace. I also factor in other things like whether this feels like UPE, socking, etc. If it's just a newbie writing in adoring terms about something they're really interested in, they'll get a lot more latitude and guidance vs. just being slapped down. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I seldom tag a draft as G11, but I have done so on occasion. I base the action on a sort of smell test. If the draft smells, so that it is obvious that it will never be an article, I either Reject it or tag it for speedy deletion. My particular variety of the smell test is what grammatical person the draft is written in. If the draft is written in the first person plural, by the company, or in the second person, addressed to the customer-reader, that is a smell. Other reviewers may have other rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

A Blocked Reviewer

Some of you already know that CommanderWaterford has been indefinitely blocked. I think that the slight effect that this has on reviews is that resubmitted drafts that were declined by CW should be looked at a little more as if they had not been previously reviewed. I will say that I usually agreed with CW's declines. (I don't really have an opinion on their accepts, because I don't usually see accepts unless I am looking at the same draft as another reviewer, or unless I am looking at the New Page feed, and I haven't reviewed new pages much recently.) I don't comment further on this unfortunate turn of events, at least not at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The reasons for their block had almost nothing to do with their NPR or AFC work, so for me I would not view any of their past reviews as suspect (as opposed to, say, someone who was blocked for UPE or socking). Primefac (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. So then the main questions, as with any resubmission, are whether the originator has made non-trivial changes that address the reason for the decline, and (as with any draft) whether the new draft satisfies the criteria for acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: we might need to review his AFC and potentially NPP work as well given how blatant the advert, copyright violation, and COI were on Youth Coalition for Organ Donation, which he had accepted at AFC. – robertsky (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Review with what workforce? Without CW, we now have a submission quantity that will increase over time, and is starting from a number so large we can't possibly handle the submissions we already have. How many articles did you have to go through before finding Youth Coalition for Organ Donation? If CW was 80% accurate or higher then I'd say leave it, unless you come across a CW mistake while doing other things. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in the week (ish) since they were blocked, our backlog has dropped back down below 5000 and we've cleared out the 5 month category. CW might have been a prolific reviewer, but clearly their loss is not the end of the project. I do, however, agree that unless there are specific issues regarding their reviewing in the past, just treat their reviews as normal. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, since his block I have tried to review at least 20 - 30 a day to compensate, but don't see any problems with their reviews. Theroadislong (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I've had the week off work and it's been rain rain rain (good old Blighty) so I've been doing more than normal so I've been partly covering CWs loss, but soon I have to go back to the hell that is my job and wont have the time anymore. KylieTastic (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's your explicit cause for the backlog dropping under 5,000 and it's absolutely not an indication that we have this ship under control—but thanks for what you've been doing, Theroadislong and KylieTastic. Our loss of CW is not itself a death sentence, but it could be one of 20 contributing factors to a death sentence. To say "no draft has waited more than five months for a review" is like saying "I managed to accomplish everything on my to-do list for today by the end of the calendar year". — Bilorv (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:AFCH

Yesterday I've installed Yet another Articles for creation helper script and I've bypassed my cache. Why doesn't WP:AFCH work well? Dr Salvus 19:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus perhaps you would care to expand on the not working well aspect. please? Please be precise about what you mean. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, I don't see this thing below . Dr Salvus 20:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus in the Draft: namespace? This is important, because un the User: namespace it only appears when triggered in your More tab Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent, yes. I mean in the draftspace. I don't see the thing above Dr Salvus 20:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus so do you see the "Review (AFCH beta)" in the "More" top menu but nothing happens? KylieTastic (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't show up automatically, you have to click things. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In the Draft: namespace it shows up automagically for me? It always has. What have I done right? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Timtrent I thought "really!?" then looked and at the top there is "AFCH v0.9.1 (preferences)" and the preferences link lets you set auto open - but I head never noticed that before. Not sure what the default is thought. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It was aeons ago I will have set it! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

What can I do to solve the problem? Your replies weren't clear Dr Salvus 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus When you have persuaded the banner to pop up, click the preferences link in its top line, and set them to whatever you wish Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It does not achieve the same effect in User: space. @Enterprisey, is that by design or a gremlin, please? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus It would be pleasant to know the end of this from your perspective Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SOMOS Films

I have just sent one of my own acceptance to AfD. Either I was incorrect then in accepting it or I am incorrect today in suggesting it be deleted. The reason I mention it here is because of the unusual nature of what I have just done. My eyes today told me it was an advert. My eyes on acceptance told me it was probably of article quality, albeit borderline. I am certain it has suffered negative improvement since acceptance.

I will take no further part in the deletion discussion and will welcome your contributions there whatever they offer as opinions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - You made a mistake a year ago in accepting this article. We all make mistakes, and some of us have the wisdom to admit to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Thank you for your honest appraisal of what I did then. Mistakes are useful things to admit. They make us better for the future. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, that is the type of reviewing error that the scoring scheme in the proposed backlog draft is intended to catch Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 07:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem was never and is not one of corporate notability, but of neutrality, and we don't have good procedures on what to do with spam that does satisfy notability. I think that this is a discussion for a policy forum such as Village Pump - Policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We can and do decline or reject drafts that are mostly advertising, but being mostly advertising isn't a basis for deletion if the subject passes notability and doesn't trigger G11. That is the problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with blacklisted title

I am trying to accept Draft:Tinsley-Wallerstein Diagram as (α/Fe) versus (Fe/H) diagram or The (α/Fe) versus (Fe/H) diagram, but am getting the message "titleblacklist-forbidden-move". The draft title isn't acceptable since the name has just been proposed in a May 2021 paper and is not otherwise in use. The diagram is currently known in the literature as the [α/Fe] versus [Fe/H] diagram, definitively calling out for a new name. StarryGrandma (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:StarryGrandma - If the title has been proposed in a May 2021 paper, then any issue with that title hardly seems worth holding up acceptance of the draft. I have accepted the draft and will allow other people to puzzle over what the proper title should be. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert McClenon. The alpha was the problem so I moved it to something using 'a;' instead. I originally rejected the article as original research, since the justification for the new name has appeared nowhere in print. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a new idea (even a good one). Then I thought better of it and rewrote the article instead to tone it down. The diagram is used widely in galactic studies and deserves an article. And now there is a redirect with the proposed name which I think is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Backlog Drive ?

It is now 1 June 2021 in London. Do we have a backlog drive in progress, or are we waiting for someone to supervise it? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There's some recent discussion about the start date above. Looks like it is pushed to July 1 or later. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

New backlog chart?

Since our old backlog chart died ages ago I was wondering if we should have something like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart for AfC? I would think it would be a good thing in general, but also for the backlog drive(s). Either maybe MusikAnimal would be willing to add it to MusikBot or maybe any other AfC bot runner could add it. It would need:

• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/monthly like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/monthly
• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/weekly like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/weekly
• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/daily like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/daily
• The bot to update Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/hourly like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart/hourly

• not convinced hourly is needed in general but maybe would help for backlogs?

• Create Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart like Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart

• also the /doc and /sandbox sub pages
• also if would be nice if the chart had links under to swap between monthly/weekly/daily/hourly views - or maybe just to a link to another sub page with all 4 on

• Finally could add it the top of here like the old chart used to be, and similar to NPP Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers
• As for the data this API call is simplest but gets about +9 (at the moment) on the {{AFC status/backlog}} as the latter does not count Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space or a couple of oddities like Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories and Wikipedia:Files for upload so just use the API result -1 (for those two pages.... I didn't even realise Wikipedia:Files for upload was considered part of AfC!)

Thoughts? Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Other ideas: line graph showing three lines on the same axis: number reviewed, number of new drafts, and net change; graph showing the distribution of how long drafts have been waiting to be reviewed; graph showing the distribution of how long drafts reviewed today had been waiting; graph showing change in accept percentage over time. Also, toolforge:apersonbot/pending-subs should have an exact count, although I'll grant that reading from it is a bit of a kludge. (I do want to get to this someday, but there's a lot of stuff that has that status...) Enterprisey (talk!) 07:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic MusikBot now has a generic category counting task, so we can easily set up a chart for Category:Pending AfC submissions for instance. See User:MusikBot/CategoryCounter for details. Let me know if you're interested in this and I can set it up. I like Enterprisey's idea for a multi-line chart, but MusikBot can't do this without authoring a new custom bot task. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

AFCH script tweak

Could we not have the AFC helper script issue Teahouse invitations when declining a draft from an editor who is extended-confirmed? Such editors are generally aware it's a templated message, so it's not a big deal, but still, it could be seen as patronizing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Another Stupid Template Issue

The following sequence of events happened, and I think there is a problem:

• 1. An originator created a draft.
• 2. A reviewer declined the draft.
• 3. The originator copied the draft into article space.
• 4. This copied the AFC submission template into article space (of course).
• 5. The AFC template, in article space, reported that there may have been a copy-paste move, and that a history merge might be necessary to preserve history.
• 6. A reviewer put a history merge tag on the article.

Well, the obvious problem is that a declined draft was copied into article space. It cannot be pushed into draft space, where it already is, and so two possibilities are to mark it as Reviewed (accepting it as an article) or to tag it for AFD. We knew that.

The unobvious problem is that a reviewer took the stupid template at its face and tagged the article for history merge. This would have been in order if it was necessary to preserve attribution, but the originator of the draft and of the article were the same person. The real problem is that the template is providing a stupid instruction.

Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, assuming that there are no further significant edits in the now copied article page which would have passed a subsequent AFC review and that the declined submission would still be declined by another AFC reviewer, I would suggest undoing step 6 and place a WP:G6 CSD on the article page. – robertsky (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Robertsky - What would the G6 be for? I think that this has to do with a draft that is declined by a reviewer and then copied into article space. I wish it were possible to speedy-delete those. Do the admins who are following this talk page agree that is a valid G6? If so, I will use it regularly, but it isn't my understanding that I can do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

My understanding, and I would like to be otherwise informed if I am wrong, is that, because the use of the draft process itself is optional, a submitter has the right to bypass AFC after a decline and to copy it into article space. This is annoying, and can be done to game the system, but it isn't in itself a basis for a G6 or any other speedy delete. When I see this, I may tag the article as having notability concerns, or I may AFD it. Is there really a quick way to deal with these? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I assumed that G6 is applicable between Draftspace and Mainspace. Admins please correct me if I am wrong. – robertsky (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

join this project

i will like to join this project, but it seems like this page is unable for me to edit and same as the request page, can someone help me?--papayaisnotafoodtalk 03:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonathan5566, Check the criteria to be a reviewer at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. It seems that you have yet to fulfil the the conditions on your en.wp. account: 500 mainspace edits. – robertsky (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Thanks PAPAYAISNOTAFOOD#talk 06:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Redirect

Hi, I'm new to AfC. I'm not sure where to ask for help - if this is the wrong place, please tell me. I've just been looking at Draft:Punyashlok Ahilyabai and think it should be accepted, but when I tried to click on accept, I got into trouble, because Punyashlok Ahilyabai already exists as a redirect. What should I do here? --Doric Loon (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon:, in situations like this the best thing to do is to tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion, and then accept the draft after its been deleted. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat:, thank you! --Doric Loon (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

AFCH script error

When I tried to decline a submission, I got this error: At line 1762: Uncaught TypeError: $afch.find(...).chosen is not a function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerfjkl (talk • contribs)

Was this for multiple pages or just one page? Maybe provide a link to a revision causing it, for easier debugging. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, I presume it was because I was running it through scriptManager, and not using it as a gadget. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 16:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I created an issue on GitHub for you. If you have any other details to add, such as exact steps to reproduce or an example page, let me know and I can add it to the ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I'm importing it from wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&title=MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 06:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl It's happening because of the missing jquery.chosen dependency. You should enable the gadget directly which will load that dependency. There's no need to put AFC-helper behind scriptManager as MediaWiki:Gadget-afchelper.js is pretty small (it's only a loader, the core of the script is loaded later if your're on a draft/user page) and further minimised and cached by the mw:ResourceLoader when loaded as a gadget. If you still want to use scriptManager for it, you'd need to ensure availability of dependencies manually. – SD0001 (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination)‎

AFC reviewers have a duty to be unbiased. I am taking the unusual step of listing this discussion here, despite its being tangential to AFC. It will benefit from unbiased analysis and opinions from folk here who wish to offer them

My objective here ids to seek to ensure that the discussion has sufficient unbiased and policy based arguments to read either a keep or a delete consensus. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not seeking to influence any opinion folk might choose to offer there

The article is about a controversial person, and the discussion has generated some partisan opinions Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Ugh is all I have to say on the topic of Berns, another AfD nomination, and having to deal with her fans. I'm staying out of this one this time. Still think that notability merely for her death and not for her activities (outside of coverage of a twitter feud) is a stretch for notability, but I don't want to have to deal with further harassment from her misguided fanbase. So, again, ugh to all of that. If anyone else is going to step into the fray, I wish you luck and would suggest caution, especially if any of your IRL accounts or name are publicly linked to your Wikipedia account. Silverseren^C 21:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your last comment is why I have remained doggedly neutral. I had no idea who Berns was when acceding to the AFD request Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

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.

---

Review and publish: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

Emat20211 (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Emat20211

Emat20211, I refer to your talk page on this: User_talk:Emat20211#Please_do_not_post_multiple_requests_for_review. Be patient, someone will come along and review in due time. – robertsky (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok Sorry, thanks! Emat20211 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Emat20211

User:Emat20211 - You have been warned more than once to stop demanding a review of your draft. If you continue to annoy the reviewers, a topic-ban may be requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse

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, could you review: Draft:Ezequiel Matthysse and create it as an article on wikipedia? Thanks!

Emat20211 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Emat20211

Emat20211 You have submitted it and it is pending, you will need to be patient. This page is for discussing the operation of AFC only. Please post questions to the AFC Help Desk itself. 331dot (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

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.

Please remember to add hatnote/dab page entry

Hallo, I've just found two articles in mainspace which appear to be different articles on the same person: Bob Wong (biologist) and Bob Wong (ecologist) (the latter found while stub-sorting). Both had been moved out of draft into mainspace. Neither mover added a hatnote to the Bob Wong article. (I've just done so).

Could the AfC project perhaps add somewhere to the protocols for moving AfC articles into mainspace something on the lines of: "If you are moving an article with a disambiguated title into mainspace, please make sure to link it from the base title, by a hatnote or disambiguation page entry as appropriate." so that readers have more chance of finding the article, and to reduce the chance of accidental duplications like this? This applies to comma-disambiguated placenames as well as to brackets-disambiguated titles. Thanks. PamD 13:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@PamD you make good sense. We do try, but things sometimes slip by. Your reminder is useful; thank you Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 08:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that reviewers could do to make accepted articles more awesome. Reviewers are welcome to do these things. We shouldn't require it because we want to allow reviewers who want to focus on the core AfC mission to do so. WP:GNOMES actually handle a lot of this pretty promptly. ~Kvng (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Double Draftification

Maybe this is the wrong forum for this concern, because this isn't really about Articles for Creation review, but about an error by New Page reviewers. There has been a discussion at the AFC Help Desk, but the problem is that an article was moved from draft space to article space twice and moved from article space back to draft space twice. Draftifying an article twice is move-warring, and is an error by the reviewer. If a page has already been draftified once and moved back to article space, and the reviewer thinks that it still should not be in article space, it should be nominated for deletion. Some editors have the idea that AFD should only be used if the nominator really wants the article deleted, and that it should not be used if some other disposition, such as redirect or draftify, is desired. AFD is the consensus process for getting articles out of article space. AFD is less disruptive than edit-warring or move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I disagree with your view of what AFD is for. Yes, it's possible for outcomes other than keep or delete to happen, but the intended outcome is deletion and the others are just alternatives that happen in lieu of the intended outcome. For sure, you don't want to see move-warring happen, but I'd think if a reviewer thought an recently promoted draft really wasn't ready for prime time, they would start by conversing with the AFC reviewer and proceed from there. Maybe the AFC reviewer will say, "Yeah, I agree this was kind of marginal, go ahead and move it back", or even, "Oh, I didn't notice that problem". Or maybe they'll convince the patroller that it's fine after all. But start with talking to each other. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - Perhaps we can agree to disagree in some details and mostly agree. I agree that the reviewer and the originator should discuss, if they both recognize that the other one is acting in good faith. But what is to be done if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive? When discussion is inconclusive, Wikipedia has consensus procedures. For article content disputes, that is RFC. For naming disputes in particular, there is Requested Move. What is to be done if the originator insists that the page is ready for article space and the reviewer insists that it is not ready for article space? When I have seen this sort of impasse, I normally think that the reviewer is right on the content issue. Reviewers, being more experienced editors, are more often right than wrong, but should be willing to admit that they may be wrong at times. What should the reviewer do if the originator insists on moving the page back to article space? Should the reviewer simply agree to leave alone? Is there an alternate consensus forum? I don't see an alternate procedure to decide between draft space and article space, other than AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We do, in my opinion, need a procedure for resolving such disputes, and one reason is that they do not always involve a good-faith reviewer and a good-faith originator. A situation that is not uncommon is that the originator is a conflict of interest editor, who is ultimately not interested in consensus, but in getting their client listed. If the client is a company, then the reviewer really does want to delete the article, and AFD is clearly in order. However, sometimes the client is an up-and-coming actor who is too soon. The ideal answer is indeed draftification, but the flack won't settle for draftification, and pushes the draft into article space again. What is to be done? I think that AFD is the least disruptive resolution, when the fault for the disruption is on the conflict of interest editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

So I agree that discussion should be attempted, at least if the originator and the reviewer are both acting in good faith. But there needs to be a way of resolving the dispute, especially if the originator is not acting in good faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Well, I certainly agree that if the AFC reviewer is not acting in good faith, then AFD (or worse) is the right call. I just don't think you should be bringing stuff to AFD if your goal is to get it pushed back to draftspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there an error here, User:RoySmith? I was referring to the originator not acting in good faith. We haven't recently had any controversies about whether an AFC reviewer was acting in bad faith (although one has been banned for other reasons). But if something needs to be pushed back to draft space, such as an actor who is too soon, is there another process to use besides AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree rather strongly with the premise here. We have tools at our disposal and the discretion to use them as appropriate for the improvement of the encyclopedia. If I see a page in mainspace that is clearly not ready for mainspace (for example, one moved from draft despite having dozens of disambiguation errors), I will not hesitate to move it back with instructions for what needs to be fixed to make it suitable for mainspace. BD2412 T 22:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The discretion to use WP:DRAFTIFY as a tool comes with the responsibility to use it in accordance with policy. Policy says, "Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD." I doubt whether having dozens of disambiguation errors would rise to the level of "clearly not ready for mainspace" outlined in the best practices under new page review. Supposing it did, however, you would have the power to move the article to draft. But if anyone objected (explicitly, on your talk page, for example, or implicitly, such as by moving it back to mainspace), then you would be allowed to fix any remaining disambiguation errors, removed ambiguous links, tag problems with {{disambiguation needed}}, talk with contributors, or take the article to AfD. A second draftification is not allowed. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, though, when you move things to draft for specific reasons, those who are trying to write the article do actually fix those things. If all they want is to get the article into mainspace, once that is accomplished they may well leave all of the errors in it. BD2412 T 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

BD2412, Dozens of disambiguation errors is not a valid use of WP:DRAFTIFY. Move to draft as an alternative to deletion. Improvable issues in articles are not justification for deletion from mainspace or move to draft, they are an opportunity for you or others to make improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, they are usually the tip of the iceberg for an article that is highly problematic in various other ways. BD2412 T 16:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists/Extremist figures

So I noticed Draft:Sacha Stone today, and I think my larger question is around notability. To me, it seems like there are contradictory essays at play. WP:GNG would suggest that coverage by AFP and the Sydney Morning News are enough to cover notability (theoretically. I mean, these are passing mentions at best), but WP:YWAB makes me think that charlatans and other WP:FRINGE figures may not meet larger notability standards.
I think about this with articles that we have seen on extremist (largely far-right) figures in draftspace. I have felt uncomfortable effectively reviewing them for a variety of reasons, but I think my larger concern can be put as GNG vs. WP:NONAZIS and (perhaps more importantly) WP:ONEEVENT. If a figure is only notable for being a provocateur and getting news coverage, does that imply notability. Perhaps the question is better suited for WP:NBIO, but I figured I would see if others were having similar struggles or concerns. Bkissin (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's helpful to have articles on notable (and thus often influential) fringe figures where we can point out their pseudoscience and conspiracy views as such. It makes it that much easier for people to look up and confirm that someone is indeed a crank. Without an article here, people would have to rely on finding one of the aforementioned news articles first instead of one of the myriad of unreliable websites out there promoting such people. Silverseren^C 20:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Successful provocateurs typically have no problem meeting notability requirements and are eligible for an article. The question is, what kind of article? WP:NPOV may be the sticking point in accepting these at AfC. ~Kvng (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

How to accept a draft when a redirect already exists to that article title?

I can't remember how to deal with this situation - I'd like to accept and publish the draft for Michelle Hanlon however there is already a page of that name, which redirects to a section of For All Moonkind. Advice appreciated, TIA! MurielMary (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

MurielMary, I've temporarily deleted the redirect you mentioned. The script should now work and allow you to accept the draft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@MurielMary: In future you can use {{db-g6}}. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It's likely better to use {{db-move}} since that includes the rationale automatically. Primefac (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Gunggamarandu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Draft talk:Gunggamarandu § Draft/article duplicate

 – Tol | talk | contribs 03:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Hello! I'm not sure what to do in this situation — Draft:Gunggamarandu was created, then later Gunggamarandu was created in mainspace. The draft is much larger and more complete, but I can't publish it because there is already a mainspace article. I think the best solution would be to delete the mainspace article under speedy deletion criterion G6 and move the draft over it, but I'm not sure. Tol | talk | contribs 00:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Tol, how about histmerge? – robertsky (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: I'm not entirely sure how history merges work, but that could be a reasonable solution. Tol | talk | contribs 03:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Tol, just checked on histmerge further. may not be applicable since there is no copy & paste moves yet. – robertsky (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes — I thought it was mainly for that; I didn't know if it could be used for duplicate articles. Tol | talk | contribs 03:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

A10 may apply as well, assuming Drafts are articles as well in A10's wording. – robertsky (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably a better solution. I'll tag it for G6/A10 and leave a note. Tol | talk | contribs 03:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

Problem with AFC gadget

Problem

Instead of seeing the normal AFC interface, this is what I see. Does anyone know why this is happening? I haven't been able to use the AFC gadget for some time because of this. It happens in multiple browsers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I don't think "Request G13 deletion Postpone G13" is part of AFCH, and makes me think that another user script is conflicting with AFCH. Maybe try disabling whatever user script is printing that, and seeing if that fixes AFCH. Also, that looks a bit narrow, are you on mobile? If so, might be worth experimenting with turning your phone sideways for landscape view, then trying to get the page to display in desktop mode (which would require going into the page's settings, and toggling "Desktop site" from off to on, then going into the URL and eliminating the m.). Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Those are a part of it per WP:AFCH. This is on my computer, not mobile. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything in the browser console? (See WP:JSERROR for information on checking it.) Enterprisey (talk!) 00:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Enterprisey, thank you! I apparently had some script installed when I should have used the gadget via preferences. I turned on the gadget but can't figure out how to uninstall the script (it's not in my common.js). Do you know how to do that? ("You installed the userscript User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js Please uninstall this script and enable the Gadget in your preferences instead.") Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Calliopejen1 it's in User:Calliopejen1/vector.js added back in 2012. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

KylieTastic, Thank you! Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the instructions with more information on how to uninstall the script. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to further reply to Novem Linguae, the G13 options only appear on pages that meet the G13 requirements. Primefac (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A Gnome Assist Comment

If you accept a stub, please put a stub template at the bottom of it. If you have no idea what the appropriate stub template is, because there are hundreds of hierarchically organized stub templates, just {{stub}} is better than nothing. If I understand correctly, this populates a category of stubs that need categorizing, so that the stub sorting gnomes will know it is there. Wikipedia has a lot of different types of gnome work being done behind the scenes by a lot of gnome editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey could this be done by the AFCH script, do you think? And, if so, should it? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Robertsky has linked a pretty nice script for stub sorting. It would be nice if we could somehow integrate it, to avoid duplicating the work, although I can't immediately see a way to do that. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey Generally AFC folk are less expert than the stub sorting folk. What if AFCH just added {{Stub}}, certainly for now? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI, my favourite script for doing stub sorting is User:SD0001/StubSorter. Just remember to use it if the article rating returns as stub. – robertsky (talk) 10:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Draftification & recreation of articles

Hello, AFC crew,

I'm bringing this question here because, frankly, I'm not sure where else to bring it. Recently, I've been checking the daily draftifications list because cross-space redirects (CSD R2s) aren't showing up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects. This is an ongoing problem of some pages not appearing in categories they've been placed in, a problem that has been brought up to tech-minded folk multiple times.

But the question is this, as I understand it, according to Wikipedia:Drafts#Objections, if a page creator objects to a page being moved from main space to draft space it should be moved back and, if it is seen as inadequate, it can be tagged for deletion. But what should be done when a page creator doesn't move their page back but just keeps recreating it in main space. What this can result in are multiple copies of the same topic and sometimes they aren't duplicates because the content is different. The editor, inevitably new, doesn't respond to talk pages notices and messages.

Should the page be moved to draft space again? Should the article space be protected against recreation? Should the drafts be tagged for deletion or the article? Or both? I'm not sure this is "move-warring" because the page isn't being moved between spaces, it gets recreated. Your thoughts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liz I think this falls under disruptive editing. Now that works as far as the editor is concerned. If the article is poor then a deletion process plus salt seems reasonable. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree that it should be read as disruptive editing, but as poor communication, and as an objection to draftification. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Joe who I assume is applying WP:AGF. The simplest approach would be to send the new mainspace article to AfD. If it gets deleted it will be difficult to recreate again but the author can continue to work on the remaining draft. If it gets kept, the draft can be merged/redirected to the mainspace article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is important whether the second version of the article is disruptive editing, or poor communication, or some combination. The real question becomes whether the article belongs in article space, which basically requires a before AFD review. If the article is not ready for article space, it should be taken to AFD, and I have been taking a few such articles to AFD every week. If the article is ready for article space, then the draft can either be redirected to the article, or tagged to be merged into the article. Many reviewers prefer to send an article to draft space rather than to AFD, and often that is a less contentious process, but sometimes AFD is the way to determine content consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes it is disruptive editing, and sometimes it is poor communication. AFD is sometimes in order either way. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I've been away from AFC

I haven't done much AFC work for quite some time (a few years). To some extent I used to specialise in removing spam from the GFOO end of the submission stream, but I've noticed that G11 is not applied to drafts as much as it used to. Has policy or practice about G11 tagging changed significantly? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Dodger67 I'm not aware of any change - I still tag some as G11, however a lot are also copy vios so as AFCH has a G12 option built in they just get tagged with that rather than a dual G11+G12. My CSD log shows I've tagged 21 this month so only one a day is quite low I guess. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 at Women in Red

Women in Red | July 2021, Volume 7, Issue 7, Numbers 184, 188, 202, 203, 204, 205 Online events: New: July Julies | Finance, economics & banking | Olympic & Paralympic Games New contest (Jul/Aug/Sep): Latin America contest Continuing: Women's rights | #1day1woman See also: "Mind your elders" Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help plan and coordinate future events. Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Can’t get a response on my user talk page

Awhile back I wrote an article about an RHOT star who didn’t yet have one. At first everything looked fine but then someone named Grogudicae or Praxidicae went to my user talk page and called my article “unambiguous advertising” which is so off-base I wonder if she wasn’t thinking of some other article and hit mine by mistake. Then someone named Deb made it a “draft” even though it was complete and told me to go over here.

I asked Grogudicae/Praxidicae and Deb what the problem with the article was, but neither of them would respond to me. I’ve read a lot of Wikipedia and followed the same conventions that are used elsewhere, beginning with valid sources including Globe and Mail, Toronto Sun, Forbes and working from there. I just found a recent piece from Car and Driver and added that too. It’s a big let down as the fun of Wikipedia is supposed to be that readers also get to participate and your work shows up right away. What am I supposed to do?Sequel part III (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sequel part III. Thanks for your contributions. I think the draft in question is Draft:Raghu Kilambi, right? I took a quick look at it and I see a couple of problems.

• The RHOT section is a bit WP:FANCRUFTy, going into too much detail about the person and their relationships. For example, Kilambi was introduced to Earle through a mutual friend, Their first date was in a Toronto restaurant called George, where Earle was greeted by a selection of wines. A play-by-play of something like that is too much detail for an encyclopedia, in my opinion.
• The PowerTap Hydrogen section does read a lot like an advertisement. It was probably written based off of press releases, which is kind of a no-no around here. Things like According to Kilambi, PowerTap is committed to the creation of at least 500 hydrogen fueling stations within five years. We really shouldn't write about what a company "plans to do". We should focus on what they have done that is noteworthy to high quality sources such as newspapers and books. And for newspapers, the articles need to have enough in-depth analysis and independent thought to make it clear that they were not written based off of press releases.

I'll leave it in the queue for a reviewer to take a look at. The reviewer will click on all your sources and do a detailed analysis to see if it passes WP:GNG. The reviewer may leave other feedback too (such as recommending deleting the PowerTap section for being off topic) or decline for other reasons (such as being too promotional). I hope this explanation helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I decided to delete the PowerTap section of the article. It was a bit off topic since it didn't talk much about Kilambi. And it should hopefully solve the promotional tone problems that originally caused the WP:G11. I think your article has a better chance now, but it could still get declined for notability reasons. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

New help desk template (Template:AfC help desk/r)

I made a template for one of our most used phrases at the help desk. Template:AfC help desk/r (shortform redirect: Template:AfCHD/r) renders into this:

The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further.

Cheers. Curbon7 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Curbon7 I've fixed the newline issue so you can use with colon

{{AfC help desk/r}} ~~~~

gives: The draft was rejected, meaning that it will not be considered further. KylieTastic (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC submission template - wording question

Hatted/transcluded section

See this comment as background. Please modified the current text in Template:AfC submission/created This article, created, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon. to This article, recently created, has an Articles for creation tag despite being in article space. This tag should be removed after vetting the draft's acceptance history. The present text is misleading and implies that the article was actually reviewed by a "reviewer". In the vast majority of of instances this tag appears in mainspace it is due to the article creator either jumping the gun (and copy-pasting a draft to main space without a review) or ignoring the review and copy pasting the draft (or an old version thereof) to main space. The existence of this tag is a red flag that merits attention. The present text "endorses" and "protects" the article from further review (as most experienced editors AGF vs. AfC reviewers regarding article notability and vetting), misleading readers.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I submitted this following your comment.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Eostrix: From what I can see at Template:AfC submission/created, it's supposed to give a warning if the draft has non-redirect content on it. So this would only be an issue in cut-and-paste moves, right? Or is that not working as intended? I have other thoughts, but first I want to make sure I understand the problem here. Also, where you see created, that's just the template copying its own {{SUBPAGENAME}}; in an article, "created" would be replaced with whatever the article's name is. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 07:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Tamzin: "created" doesn't appear in draft space (at least according to the template documentation, it shows in mainspace only). Look at this page version (article up for deletion...) in main space. It has "AfC submission|t||ts=20210219001314|u=Camrybrown|ns=118|demo=" on the top, with the "T" parameter, which in draft appears as Template:AfC submission/draft. However in mainspace this appears with Template:AfC submission/created in accordance with the template documentation of this showing up in mainspace. The current text is misleading in that it says this was checked by an accredited reviewer, whereas in 99% of the cases this tag is still on an article in mainspace it has hijacked the AfC process, bypassing reviewers or ignoring reviewers' rejections.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Tamzin, I think what Eostrix is getting at is that the current wording implies that the submission has been "reviewed", whereas if an autoconfirmed user 'jumps the gun' and moves a submission to mainspace themselves that won't have happened. Agreed with regard to your other comments. firefly ( t · c ) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC) No, I understand the rationale here. My point is that the code at Template:AfC submission/created looks like it's already supposed to address this: {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||{{#ifexist:Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{#if: {{#invoke:Redirect|isRedirect|Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}||---- '''WARNING: [[Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}]] is {{PAGESIZE:Draft:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} bytes.''' This may be a "copy and paste" move. To avoid losing the edit history, administrators should consider [[WP:HISTMERGE|merging the history]] of the AfC draft into this article. Non-administrators should consider placing <nowiki>{{Histmerge|</nowiki>{{#ifexist:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/|Draft:}}{{SUBPAGENAME}}<nowiki>}}</nowiki> at the top of this article before removing this ''AfC submission'' template.<includeonly>[[Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves]]</includeonly>}}<!-- #if:#invoke: -->}}<!-- #ifexist: --> }}<!-- if:{{NAMESPACE}} --> I'm gonna try to figure this out, but thought I'd reply real quick to explain what I'm talking about. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC) The problem is the text saying it was "blessed" by the AfC team. The typical flow here now is that a non-autoconfirmed user submits a draft to AfC, in the process gains more than 10 edits (userpage, draft), and after some time (>4 days) when he is auto-confirmed (after going through the motions of AfC, even if unreviewed or rejected) posts it into main space. The requirement for auto-confirmed for creation has increased this type of flow, because users who were "forced" into AfC due to not being AC typically becoming AC just by submitting one article and waiting for the review... I don't see the ""copy and paste" in the one I pointed at (so that's something else here that's buggy maybe), but that wouldn't solve the problem of the text implying that the article was "blessed" by the AfC review team.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Tamzin, ah right, sorry, I'll butt out and leave you to it! :) firefly ( t · c ) 08:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Okay, I see the issue here: @Eostrix:​ The code there is working as intended; the issue is that the article's creator put it under a different title than the draft. I went to the redirect Virtual Team Maturity Model and previewed adding {{AfC submission/created}}, and it behaved as expected. I can't think of any way that we could check for drafts with different titles short of getting a bot to do it, so with that out of the way, yeah, I agree that the message shouldn't imply AfC approval where none exists. My only remaining question, then, is coming up with wording that makes sense to: An AfC reviewer who isn't done with the move (the original use case) A user who's just done a copy-paste move (but without implying they've definitely done something wrong, since there are good-faith reasons this could happen) A passing new page patroller A random editor who happens to stumble on the page I feel like your second sentence would only take care of #3 there. Radical thought here, but does group #2 need to know that they've done this? If it's a good way to spot copy-paste moves, I'd think we wouldn't want to bring it to their attention that they've done so. What about taking advantage of user-right-specific -show classes? Wrap the whole ambox in class=extendedconfirmed-show (given that most of these users won't have XC, and all AfC reviewers must have it), and then: This article, {{SUBPAGENAME}}, has an [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]] tag despite being in [[Wikipedia:Namespaces|article space]]. If you are an AfC reviewer, please remember to remove this template. <span class="patroller-show sysop-show">If you are not the reviewer, '''NOTE''': AfC submission tags in mainspace often indicate a [[WP:C&P|copy-paste move]] from draftspace. Please check the history involved before removing this tag.</span> Thoughts? -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 08:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC) c/e 19:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Tamzin: You are correct that vs. #2 we don't want to spill the WP:BEANS too much (as we do not want them removing it, if they did it, as we want this to flag other editors), I suggest we just tweak it so it won't imply to #3 and #4 that the AfC crew blessed it (which makes deletion/draftification less likely). The typical editors doing this are less experienced (the more experienced COI operations either shepherd this through AfC the whole way, or alternatively game AC accounts and post to main space directly). You could check the user right's of the mover/creator, but all that is really required for #1 is some message implying that the tag is transitory and should be removed eventually by experienced editors of some sort - without implying a "blessed" status (which acts as a shield vs. review by others).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Just as a side point, I've done two things in the interim: first, I've pointed WT:AFC to this discussion to get more input, and I've disabled the edit request. The reason for the second is that there are plenty of folks watching the page now, and I'm happy to implement the change once a consensus is reached. Feel free to continue the thread of discussion above mine, or continue below. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks. Updating I cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, as in my mind this is a new article patrol issue.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC) support I agree it should be changed. If reviewed by an AfC reviewer the AFCH tool should remove very quickly or in the rare case doing it manually it should be removed quite quickly so having it as stands has no practical use for AfC and is misleading suggesting it has been reviewed for cut-paste or regular moves. As some editors move or add a redirect manually the template should not try to autodetect a redirect to assume any reviewing was done. Also I agree with adding "class=extendedconfirm-show". Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Comment I've come across this a few times during NPP. The message This article, created, has recently been created via the Articles for creation process. The reviewer is in the process of closing the request, and this tag should be removed soon. seems to occur when a page is moved from draft without going through AfC, for example here.[6] When it is a copy and paste move the message is This is a misplaced articles for creation submission. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space rather than marking it for deletion. Note: If you are not an administrator or page mover please tag the redirect left behind after the move for deletion using {{db-r2}} such as here.[7] When I come across the former I assume that an AfC reviewer hasn't been involved as it's unlikely they would have moved it to mainspace before completing their review. I would suggest both messages are replaced with This article, recently created, has an Articles for creation tag despite being in article space. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space rather than marking it for deletion. Note: If you are not an administrator or page mover please tag the redirect left behind after the move for deletion using {{db-r2}} --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @John B123: I mostly agree, but in the many cases in which this is a cut and paste move or other duplication (newer/older revision) of an existing draft then moving it back to draft is not really an option, this would result in multiple drafts of the same page. Draftifying is less likely than a non-AfC new page by a newbie.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Eostrix: If it was a straight copy and paste from draft, I'd redirect it draft and tag the redirect {{db-r2}}. If it had been "improved" in mainspace but draftification was still appropriate it gets more complicated, as does the situation where the draft has been created by one editor and the article in mainspace was a copy from a different editor's sandbox. If an inexperienced editor tried to move it to draft and a draft already existed they'd probably give up when it didn't work. A more experienced editor would probably know how to get round this. The AfC error message needs to be simple not an essay covering every possibility. --John B123 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Eostrix: what is the "vetting" you're referring to in this text? Why would we need to vet (and presumably consider moving back to draft)? Why wouldn't this appropriately just stay in mainspace (with the tag removed) and get processed by NPP? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Calliopejen1: Vetting as in review, and particular reviewing the AfC history, article creator history (in particular declines and / or speedy deletions of the draft), and in some cases other accounts (AfC tags like maintenance tags with old dates coming from a new account with no history on the article are often signs that there is another account involved). Certainly some such articles are appropriate for main space, but very often these articles (with AfC tags) are created by newbies who either are tired of waiting for an AfC review or worse are main spacing the article after it was rejected at AfC or even speedy deleted in draft. Assuming the article, including copy-pasted versions of it, had a history in draft space then that history is often relevant for the mainspace review.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you, User:Eostrix, for placing this request in response to my complaint. I have making this complaint from time to time for more than a year. As the other editors have noted, that message in particular means that the AFC submission template is present in an article in article space. It is accurate in one situation, if the AFC reviewer closes the window while the accept script is still running, which can happen by accident, or due to impatience by the reviewer. It is almost accurate in another situation, if acceptance of a draft was blocked by a redirect, and a reviewer tags the redirect for G6, and an admin deletes the redirect, and moves the draft to article space. If the admin is not an AFC reviewer, they may not know about the cleanup that is done by the accept script. However, it usually means that the article was moved from draft space to article space by a Move by the author. In that case, the article should be reviewed in the same manner as any other new article, and may be good, and may not be ready for article space. As other reviewers have noted, sometimes the article was declined or rejected by AFC, or was in article space and was draftified, and the author may be move-warring. The message that is displayed is usually wrong, and is confusing because it is wrong. Sometimes there are reasons why messages should be accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) I think John B123's third option above is the closest to what we really want to say. To me, the main thing this template should tell is us that the article, at some point, was in the draft space, and is now in the Article space, and it should be evaluated. It should check the status of the draft-of-the-same-name and give relevant possibilities: Draft is a redirect, which indicates either an accept-that-didn't-complete or a move out-of-process by the creator or a non-reviewer, and the template can likely can just be removed (or the page returned to draft space). Draft is not a redirect, in which case there should be a warning that it might be a copy/paste pagemove and should be evaluated based on that fact. Draft does not exist, which means it should be evaluated as normal (and maybe indicate a check for a copy/paste pagemove from somewhere). John's language fits reasonably well with option #1, with a few tweaks. Keep in mind we don't want to have too much text in the banner. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC) I mostly agree. I also think Tamzin's suggestion to wrap this with "class=extendedconfirmed-show" is worthwhile as AfC and NPP reviewers will have this flags and this avoids spilling the beans vs. those who do out of process moves / copy-pastes.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC) Relatedly, I'm mostly happy with John's wording, but I do think it's good to avoid bothering our readers with admin stuff when possible. Might I suggest something like this? This article, {{PAGENAME}}, has an Articles for creation tag despite being in article space. If it is not yet ready for article space, please consider moving it to draft space <span class="extendedmover-show sysop-show">without leaving a redirect, or moving it</span> and tagging the redirect for {{tl|db-r2}} deletion. And that's with the whole template wrapped in extendedconfirm-show, as Eostrix and I have discussed. Also, I would reïterate that "recently created" is not actually part of the template's language; in articles it will say the article's name there. In this proposal I'm changing {{SUBPAGENAME}} to {{PAGENAME}} to make that more clear to users looking at the template page (where it would now say This article, Template:AfC submission/created, given that the two magic words always have the same output in mainspace (and this template cannot display in any other namespace). -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello all, there is a discussion regarding {{AfC submission/created}} and the wording it gives when it shows up on on article. I have transcluded the section above in the hidden box, but if you have thoughts, ideas, or suggestions for how to deal with the issue please go to the discussion directly and add your thoughts. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Tentatively looking to become active here

Greetings,

so I just had my draft accepted after a wait of ~5 months. Which was delightful, but the wait was a pain. I've been toying with the idea of helping out a bit to get the backlog down, and am now considering it since my own draft is no longer waiting. However, even though I believe I technically fulfil the minimum requirements, I think I would first need some experience in the area. So, my question is: What should I do to familiarize myself with the AfC process?

My experience: I have not learned every notability guideline by heart, but I have read several of them. I'm rather confident on my ability to judge the quality of sources (with the help of User:Headbomb/unreliable). I have not participated much in AfD yet, so I guess that might also be worth to do first? I should probably also note that I am not the most active Wikipedian, so I wouldn't be able to review that many AfCs because I still primarily want to create myself. But I guess even a handful each year would still help. So yeah, any advice? --LordPeterII (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@LordPeterII before throwing your hat into the ring formally, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants and read the criteria required in the green box at the top of the page. I've not checked your contributions record because I know you will do that yourself.

Partticipating at AfD is always a good idea since AFC is the other side of the same pancake. Eating one side without eating the other is hard.

Assuming that you qualify, yes, even a few reviews a year is a welcome few reviews. Enthusiasm, coupled with skill is always welcome. You've experienced the unpleasant side of the backlog, and know how it feels. We hate having a backlog. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like you qualify, LordPeterII! Your account is old enough and you have over 1,000 live edits. So good on that front. I would also suggest some AfD activity, just so you get a hang of what kinds of articles are kept or deleted and what source quality is expected. I would also suggest signing up for The Wikipedia Library. It'll give you access to a bunch of reliable source databases, which you can use both when evaluating AfC/AfD articles and it would also help you when you're making articles of your own. Silverseren^C 08:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent and Silver seren: Thanks. I am going to AfD first for a while then, and will check back here once I'm comfortable that I can judge an article's survival chance. I'm actually already signed up for the Wikipedia Library and have access to the free bundle, but it's a good suggestion I would also give to anyone. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

Mention that I want DRAFT:VAX LIVE to be published. Ultimate of Ultimate (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Although I have submitted the article for review. Zoozaz1 talk 17:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Ken Tony's reviews

Hi, I'm concerned about reviews by User:Ken Tony. He seems to have an unacceptably high error rate, and is giving bad advice to draft authors when they inquire on his talk page. For example, he has declined multiple drafts as copyvios that came from obvious wikipedia mirrors, and when this was explained to him, he seemed to understand but nevertheless recommended that the draft author reword their draft. He has declined multiple drafts as translations even though translations (when attributed) are perfectly fine. He has declined drafts on the basis of the inclusion of a small number of bad sources even when there is a large number of additional other sources. He has recommended that a draft author add sources to a "Literature" section when it was itself a list of written works. Ken seems to be open to feedback, but given this very high number of errors in a short period of time that I noticed just from reviewing his talk page, I don't think it's a good idea for him to do AFC reviewing, at least not without close supervision/mentorship. Open to others' thoughts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Now, I'm being very careful about that. I started to look guidelines more often before reviewing these days. It's true that I need a mentor. I used to have a mentor but he got blocked due to sockpuppetry. I'm now taking a break from reviewing. I would be very happy if someone is ready to mentor me. The rest, everyone can decide. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 19:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

If for this I'm removed from the participants list, I won't be disappointed, because I know that my decision making so far in the AfC has been average, if not poor. So, designated personalities can take the necessary actions against me. I'll take each moment as an educational session, that would help me choose a perfect and solid decision in future. Feel free to take the next steps. Thank you. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

And, about the translated drafts. I genuinely didn't knew about it, when attributed, it was fine to be there. I fully understand all of my mistakes. I did all these with a good-mind to preserve the greatness of Wikipedia. Once again, thank you for taking time to read this. You can take necessary actions as required. Regards, Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony Might I suggest that you learn your trade with the low hanging fruit of obvious acceptances or declines? It's right that @Calliopejen1 has asked the questions. I think what we need is a better way of helping newer reviewers find their feet. Nine of us have hit the ground running for our early review decisions.

Take twice as long as you think, and consider asking any of us about the decision you intend toi take where you are in any doubt. You can always mark a draft as under review.

Until we have a better way of easing new reviewers in my advice is always to go for the obvious reviews, and also to stalk, in the nicest possible way, experienced reviewers. And we still make mistakes! I just had a borderline acceptance sent directly to AfD. I'll know if I was correct at the end of that discussion! Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, far better to leave a draft you feel unable to review than force yourself into a decision. We all do that, no exceptions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems I was not correct. That article was deleted. And I have learnt something from it. Good. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 07:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as TimTrent says, reviewing easier drafts is a good idea so you can build your skills. Hint: the front of the queue (newer drafts) is easier than the back of the queue. Another idea is to know your strengths and weaknesses (know what SNGs you're comfortable with). For example, I am comfortable with corporations and politicians, so I get excited to review those. I am uncomfortable with sports and academics, and I avoid those for now. You may also want to look into WP:NPPSCHOOL, which is where I learned most of my reviewing skills. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind advises. I'm really glad for that. I'm comfortable with sports, India etc. I'll leave the drafts which seems to be difficult to review rather than forcing myself to take a decision there. I'll also discuss with other members of the AfC in the event of confusion. Thank you all. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 05:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, additionally to reviewing new drafts, you can also utilise this sorted list here Wikipedia:AfC sorting to focus only on the topics that you are comfortable with. At the moment, there seems to be a sizeable back log for South Asia (which likely to largely consist of articles from India). I use this as my training wheels when I initially started reviewing here weeks ago. – robertsky (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, before, I used to sort them out from this link. Anyway, thank you Robertsky. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 08:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ken Tony I just noticed my glorious typo that nine of us hit the ground running. Will the nine please step forward? Of course I meant NONE.

As well as leaving the difficult reviews, as we all do (there is always someone else who will find them easy), never review when tired. Be prepared to justify any acceptance or decline. Review as if you were teaching someone else to review - it concentrates the mind. And remember the golden rule: If it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process, accept it. However, since you are learning, be more certain than 50%, but not more than 60% when you feel it to be borderline. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Timtrent. Now, I'm about to go to WP:NPPSCHOOL, as said by a user in the above conversation. Thank you once again for your words. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken_Tony, I'm glad that you have gotten a lot of good advice here! One thing I'd have to disagree with Timtrent on, though. Until you've gotten your sea legs, I would err against declining rather than toward declining. This doesn't mean you have to accept borderline articles -- probably better just to pass for now and let someone else deal with them. I suggest erring against declining because more harm is done by an incorrect decline than an incorrect acceptance. Where the drafter is not persistent, an incorrectly declined draft will eventually be deleted under G13, making the incorrect outcome permanent. But if you incorrectly accept an article, that mistake can corrected by a later deletion nomination. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1: Yep. From now, everything will be done perfectly. Now, a user is mentoring me as per my request. I believe I can do better once I get a good knowledge about it. Thank you for all your help. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Ken Tony, No need for perfection! We all make mistakes, it's just a matter of making a reasonable number of them. ;) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah mate. It's all for making a good decision in my future reviews, and eliminate the high chance of making big errors. All is well. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 17:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1 We are not in any great disagreement. I hope it is clear I was referring to blindingly obvious examples where a decline was indisputable. I do, however, take your point, and I thank you for making it. It is better advice than mine was. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mahnaz_Malik

I'm just surprised. Mahnaz Malik being the youngest ever arbitrator appointed by the World Bank and also winning the UK Financial Times of the Year Award. That's beyond notable.

Also, I do not understand how the author of several books two of them published by Oxford University press is not notable. All sources are not self published but of third party sources and news.

Further she's been noted as a leading children's writer in other Wikipedia entries?

My question is what I do? It seems quite unfair that someone can reject on whimsical grounds.

Are the articles written about her in Wikipedia are not notable? Is that what you are saying.

Other articles can write about someone on Wikipedia and cite the person but the person whom they're citing isn't notable enough to have an article ? That does not make sense.

Please review it again. Your grounds are completely unjustified by it being rejected.

Further more the user who rejected does not respond to message and chooses to speak in a unprofessional manner. Please do help on what to do next.

Thank you Njinfo10109 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Njinfo10109, I'm gonna put it simply. You've received multiple answers from us regarding this draft. You posted several times on the AfC help desk and on the talk page of every reviewer involved with this draft, and we answered you with judgment pertaining to our policies regarding notability and reliable sourcing. Jéské Couriano gave a well detailed answer on one of your help desk posts regarding the facts that many of your sources aren't as solid as you think. Hatchens gave you valuable information regarding a variety of policies when you posted on his talk page.

We have given you valuable, coherent, and policy-based answers every single time. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Njinfo10109 - Sometimes a submitter of an article becomes their own worst enemy by taking a hostile attitude toward the reviewers. That is what happened to you. Your subject was and is notable, and you failed to write a draft that established her notability, and it was rejected because you were the wrong author or something. You should apologize to the reviewers, and give special thanks to User:Silver seren, but I don't expect that you will do either. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the draft has been mainspaced. Good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right I might have been the wrong author to publish this article.

Sorry to all the reviews I have offended. You're right I should have not had a hostile attitude because of my errors on articles.

I thank User:Silver seren for his work. Taking the time to do his has really touched me, I appreciate greatly. Njinfo10109 (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Silverseren Thank you. Njinfo10109 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Updating talk-page tags when page changes

What do I do with the {{WPAFC|class=redirect|...}} tag on a talkpage when the target of the redirect is changed to point to a different target? Remove it altogether? Leave it for historical reference? It's still true about the creation, but what's there now is not that created thing anymore. DMacks (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

sorting

Is there any way to sort stuff out that is NOT a BLP, product, or business? I'd be happy to help with AfC but when I sorted and started through the category I generally am knowledgeable about (Culture/Food and drink) all but one were either BLPs, products, or businesses. —valereee (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Valereee! Unfortunately no. That's the problem with machine learning these days is that what the bot thinks is particular sorted topic can be wildly different from the reality. I found that same problem in the Politics and Government section as well. Luckily, there are not many food and drink articles in the queue right now, but if I find any, I'll ping you. Bkissin (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bkissin. The one submission that was something other than a BLP/product/business is Draft:Copycat recipes which may be promotional but in any event is likely just a neologism (I googled it, there doesn't seem to be anything but lists/cookbooks of such recipes.) It's been declined and not yet resubmitted, but it's still in the sort. Is that because it was declined rather than rejected? (Sorry, new here, don't know the lingo.) It probably just needs to be rejected. Is there a user script I can install that would make it easy for me to do that? —valereee (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The AFC sort lists aren't real-time - they're updated periodically by a bot. The draft should be removed from the list the next time it runs. I wouldn't reject that FWIW, even though I highly doubt it's notable - rejection is usually reserved for things that are repeatedly resubmitted without improvement or just offensively bad (e.g. an autobiography sourced only to someone's Facebook profile). Spicy (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sake. And I started to work on Draft:Therese Nelson, which looked like it might be worth fixing, and after working for a bit I discovered Thérèse Nelson. Do I just turn the draft into a redirect? How does this not get discovered before now lol? —valereee (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeap, that's what I do. Just turn the drafts into redirects to avoid duplicated work. I'd also create a mainspace redirect for Therese Nelson. Hopefully save someone else problems in the future :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I think I might have f'ed that up. Someone check my work? Also I've just blocked the creator of Draft:Eagle Foothills AVA for multiple copyvio creations, I'm thinking this is a UPE for the wineries. How do I deal with that draft? It's definitely notable, definitely should have an article. Sorry for all the questions, clearly this is a complicated area.@Spicy, so even though I strongly suspect an article would fail an AfD because it's a neologism, don't reject? That seems like such a time-waster. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Most drafts at AfC would probably fail AfD, but the usual practice is to reserve rejection for the worst of the worst. No, it doesn't really make sense. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I suppose the intention is not to bite newbies and to prevent premature rejections of drafts that are poorly written/sourced but actually notable. Many drafts are never resubmitted after the initial decline. Spicy (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Slashes in title and AFCH script

The AFCH script still provides strange results for drafts with slashes in the title, see User talk:2607:FEA8:F180:3FF1:75D6:681C:8801:F239 ("DC" should read "AC/DC"). This was mentioned earlier here, but still seems to be an issue. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

In computer manuals in the twentieth century, the statement was sometimes made that "results are unpredictable" if some deprecated input is provided. "Results are unpredictable" if there is a slash in the title, because the script thinks a subpage is being specified. If the script cannot be made to parse a slash correctly, then a statement should be made that results are unpredictable (so, "Don't Do That, Then", but we don't have an article for the phrase "Don't Do That, Then"). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A slightly better approach than incorrectly parsing the slash would be for the script to cough and die if it encounters a slash. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there's an issue for it in the bug tracker. GitHub Issue #110. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Question Re: Fresh Start and backlog drive

Would love to be able to help with the backlog drive, but I recently did a WP:FRESHSTART. I pinged Enterprisey on IRC about it, but figured I would ask here as a better location. More than happy to link my previous account to an admin, or trusted user, for verification that I'm not just avoiding sanctions or otherwise, but would like to keep from publicly linking my former account to this one for privacy reasons. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Shoot me an email with your past username, I'll double-check to make sure you meet the requirements. If possible, please also send me an email from that old account as verification that you own both. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks! SamStrongTalks (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done makes three. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome aboard SamStrongTalks KylieTastic (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Question About Draft:Plexiglas

I have a question about this draft. It was already declined once as reading like an advertisement. Plexiglas is currently a redirect to Poly(methyl methacrylate), which gives detailed information about the product. There doesn't appear to be any information about the product in the draft that isn't also in the article. However, the draft is a history of the brand. My question is whether it is worth evaluating the draft as a history of the brand, or whether the draft should simply be declined as not adding anything to the article about the product. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I definitely feel like the draft (as written) is more about Plexiglas (company) than Plexiglas (product) and should be evaluated on those grounds. Do you think it would be helpful to move the draft to Draft:Plexiglas (company)? Primefac (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Draft:Plexiglas (company) and declined as an undersourced advert. LittlePuppers (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Should I approve this draft?

This draft: Draft:Millennial Action Project seems to cite their own website quite a lot, but also cites quite a few reliable secondary sources. Do you think that I should approve the draft and put a notice on the article that it cites too much primary sources? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's significant coverage, then I guess it depends on how the primary sources are used; if it's things like company states or dates, that's probably fine, but if there are big chunks that rely solely on them (and/or are promotional) then it might be worth just gutting those bits and letting the post-acceptance gnomes handle any re-additions. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would decline as overly promotional and unclear notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with User:K.e.coffman and would decline it as written on grounds on tone and neutrality. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:K30OK-D

Unsure what to do here, as the creator of the draft; User:TulsaOklahoma appears to be a sockpuppet; I subsequently have opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPWTulsaOK1213. The draft itself seems somewhat promising though it is small and only has one reference. Eternal Shadow Talk 18:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

But I'm not a sockpuppet. TulsaOklahoma (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@TulsaOklahoma these are questions all Wikipedia editors are entitled to ask. You are entitled to mounty a defence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPWTulsaOK1213 and should do so. Defences should be calm, factual and considered. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The adjudication of sockpuppetry is normally done by CheckUsers, who are specially trusted functionaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Five Months Cleared

The five-month backlog has been cleared through the efforts of multiple reviewers. That is good. Can the template message about a five-month wait be changed to four months? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, are there any reviewers who have time to answer the above questions in addition to clearing the backlog? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon do you mean on the submit template, if so that is automatic - or is there another place? KylieTastic (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • User:KylieTastic - If the template is smart, the template is smart. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• It is smart: {{AfC submission/pending}} uses {{AfC status/age}} to produce: "This may take 6 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order." by picking the first cat (oldest first) than has more then 1 page in it (to stop a single random bad submit causing it to show much older than it should be). KylieTastic (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsure about draft

So, I'm convinced Draft:Zatiruha is a thing but can't verify the sources prove it. It seems to have been translated from the ruwiki. I can't get to what look like the two best sources. What I can get to, and what I've added, are very iffy sources, but the google search turns up so many instances (of recipes, but still) that I'm convinced this is probably a notable dish in Eastern European cuisines. We can't use the recipes to prove it, but the very existence of so many of them in my experience would be extremely unusual for any dish that isn't notable. What should I do? Can I AGF on sources, accept, and hope someone will come along and verify? —valereee (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You could try WP:RX. They are able to get snippets of lots of different kinds of sources. As for how much AGF is recommended, depends how confident you are it would get nominated for AFD / survive AFD, I suppose. Looking forward to other answers to see how others handle it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae the problem is that these sources are books in Russian, so even if someone could get me access, I still can't verify. I can't even search the term easily because of the difference in alphabet, and there are at least four or five transliterations to English, plus multiple different names in different languages. Maybe I'll try at Wikiproject Russia. —valereee (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, For stuff like this, I'd just accept. If it's not a hoax, it's not like anything is hurt by having an article about a non-notable Russian dish in Wikipedia. If others down the line think it's not notable, they can nominate for deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Calliopejen1, I was just thinking that. It clearly is not a hoax. It is definitely arguably notable. Thanks! —valereee (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Should AfC acceptance make the article immune from CSD#G4?

Should AfC acceptance make the article immune from CSD#G4?

I think so. Acceptance at AfC should mean that the reviewer is aware of the AfD, and should have glanced at it, and that the reviewer thinks the article would probably survive AfD. That's more than enough reason for a discussion over a G4 speedy. Also, isn't this largely one of the points of AfC, to help and check with post-deletionre-recreations?

See for reference Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 6#Isak Hansen-Aarøen where I argue this in one case. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• I agree SmokeyJoe also I don't consider going from 9 source (3 meh) to 23 (2 meh) and several times the word count to be "sufficiently identical" anyway. I haven't looked deeper to see if it would survive round 2, but it deserves it. Although I'd be happy to support immunity, I think the actual issue here is very vague application of "sufficiently identical". KylieTastic (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:John Davies (poet and wood carver)

I declined this, but would appreciate other eyes, please Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an odd article, because there are things that point to Davies having some recognition - the awards and an entry in The Oxford Companion to the Literature of Wales. If I was reviewing it I may have reluctantly declined it because of inadequate sourcing - there's an awful lot of WP:OR in the draft from archives and birth records, for example. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It either has been or is about to be resubmitted. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

How am I doing?

OK, I've been a reviewer here for a couple of weeks now, and at a quick tally I have accepted 17, declined 12 and rejected 1. Is that about normal? Is there any overview, or any way we newbie reviewers get feedback to make sure we are doing as well as we possibly can? --Doric Loon (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hey Doric Loon there is no correct amount of accepts vs declines so to answer how your doing someone will have to look at some of the reviews. In the last month accepts were at 20.4% across the project. For individuals it depends a lot if you patrol the very new submits or work on old ones, specific topics, random or a mix. If you look at the last 7 days accepts is everything from 0% to 100%. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Your accept rate is a bit high. If you look at the top 20 AFC reviewers by volume in the last 30 days, they are averaging around 21% accept rate, 76% decline rate, 3% reject rate. Would have to dig a little deeper to evaluate the quality of your accepts. Maybe link a couple of ones you feel iffy about for us to take a look at? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, curiosity got the better of me, and I derived a month to date version of your query... to see if I am eligible for the afc barnstar (sadly, not yet). – robertsky (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  Robertsky. Very nice. Forked and bookmarked :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• You prompted me to look at my own stats:

• Examined 3,662 reviews:
• Accepts: 1,065 (48.04%)
• Declines: 738 (33.29%)
• Comments: 414 (18.67%)

None of us is correct or incorrect. It depends on the drafts we are faced with and choose to act on. I accept the "just over borderline" drafts on the basis that it is my understanding of our brief. Some are more rigorous. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments - these have been very helpful! While I realized that obviously there is no quota, I thought a benchmark would help, and now I have one. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Arooj Aftab

Hi, I'm thinking that Draft:Arooj Aftab should be accepted, but it is create protected. I am guessing that this is because the article was already deleted three times. However, that was 14 years ago, when the artist was 22. Now she's 36 and has an incomparably broader career, so I'm not sure those old deletes should have any bearing. I am not entirely happy with this article - in particular, the "press" section looks distinctly odd to me. But I think her notability is established by the sources given. Do you agree? And if so, what do we do about the create protection? --Doric Loon (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Doric Loon, I second the removal of the create protection. Regarding acceptance, I'll leave that to your judgement. Curbon7 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doric Loon For your second question, you can ask the protecting admin (if they're still active), or file a request at Wikipedia:RfPP. See Wikipedia:SALT for more information. ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

AFC helper script

@Enterprisey Would it be possible tI remove header s which are.not part of draft, and are usually at the button of the page? For example, Re-submisssion: Women Cross DMZ (focused only on the walk, deleted sources generated by peace activists/participants in the walk--cannot physically removed the photos, but request that you do so if need be.) (as a heading). ―Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

AFC Helper script - remove promising draft tag

Suggestion to remove the {{Promising draft}} template when approving drafts. The template was not removed when I accepted a draft. Pinging Enterprisey. – robertsky (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I created a ticket for you over at GitHub. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

4000! \o/

Finally down to 4000 and it wasn't long a ago we were stuck around 5500 for ages! Good job everyone! KylieTastic (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Great job folks. Keep it up! P.S. What's the best way to check the backlog number? Is there a graph similar to Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog chart for AFC? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae:, See Template:AFC status.--LocoMotive 1776 18:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae I thought about charts back in may, and MusikAnimal pointed out there was a quick and easy option see this. I didn't follow up that as I was going to write my own bot to do more detailed stats, but got distracted by real-life and in reality I'm not going to get around to it for a while, so that option should probably be followed up. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess now is a good enough time.... hey MusikAnimal regarding the setting up of User:MusikBot/CategoryCounter for AfC as per previous. If you could setup daily and weekly counters for Category:Pending AfC submissions with I guess data cutoffs of 30 days and 52 weeks (guessing) that would be of help to the backlog drive. Then maybe sometime in the future I or someone will sort a fuller multi-line chart. Thanks in advance KylieTastic (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@KylieTastic  Done, see {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart}}. The bot should start adding the daily data within the next 24 hours, and the weekly data gets populated on Fridays. Assuming you've got nothing against showing more data, I've configured the bot to cutoff the daily chart at 365 days. This should render nicely in a year's time. Weekly meanwhile will take many years before it's too much to display, so I didn't include a cutoff at all for now. Best, — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MusikAnimal - I've added to the top of the page where the old one used to be and use the history from Wikipedia:AfC sorting to backdate to the start of the month/backlog drive. KylieTastic (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the weekly data back to the start of this year, could go back further if people so desire. I've added the graph to the top. KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Trying to help

I signed up to try to help with this effort. When I added the recommended tool for editing draft articles, a popup started coming up every time I started editing, saying that I was not on the access list. I checked the list and saw my user name on the list User:G. Moore.

-- Talk to G Moore 22:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like your name on the list has an underscore instead of a space. Not sure if that would cause the issue. Perhaps Primefac can check? -2pou (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:ATTREQ tool?

Does anyone know if there is a tool to easily determine if content was likely copied from another article as if the author intended to create a Split or anything like that to ensure that WP:ATTREQ is adhered to? I tried the Earwig Copyvio tool, which kind of works. Just curious if anyone knew of something else. -2pou (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

When I'm comparing a draft to an existing article, I'll either use Special:ComparePages or the copyvio tool (the former is better for direct copy/pasting, with the latter better when it's been a bit more rearranged/muddled). Very occasionally (though honestly more for when I'm comparing to a deleted page) I'll copy the text to my sandbox and then use the copyvio tool to run a check on that. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

3000! \o/

I must admit I was sceptical how well this would work.... but the backlog drive is going really good, and nice to see new names in the active reviewers. Yesterday (2021-07-08) a huge 626 reviews done. And we are still getting more asking to get added to the participants as well which is cool. Everyone involved give yourself a pat on the back :) - Maybe, just maybe me can eliminate the backlog, and get AfC working as it should. KylieTastic (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Well done to everyone involved :-) Pahunkat (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It's really good to see some progress. I think our goal should be nothing short of eliminating the backlog. For the system to function properly, we really need almost all drafts to be reviewed within a week of submission—otherwise the creator is long gone and drafts with promise are left to die. That this hasn't been happening is not the fault of the reviewers we have, but the reviewers we don't have, so hopefully some of the people in this backlog drive will stick around afterwards. Doing any number of reviews on a regular basis is a help. — Bilorv (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Did we just get the backlog number down 2000 in 10 days, with 3000 more to go? That's awesome. If we keep up this rate of reviews, we'll clear the backlog by the end of the drive. Great job everyone. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I am impressed. Knowing out would work was one thing. Seeing it work is another. I'm looking forward to seeing the leaderboard once we have it working, because, unlike, June 2014, I hope to see a hotly contested lead, well distributed between multiple reviewers Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted reviewed articles... and stats

Thanks to Pahunkat making me think a bit, I realised the now obvious point that mere mortals cannot see deleted articles so they also cannot see edit summaries, so cannot see deleted reviews. So this means all the stats I and others do over on Quarry do not include deleted reviews. Luckily for the backlog drive User:Excirial/AFCBuddy can count deleted contributions, I assume as long as run by an administrator.

For people who always leave users decline notices on their user pages we can work out the number of missing reviews from these stats:

• AfC deleted declined/rejected reviews, last 24 hours
• AfC deleted declined/rejected reviews, last 7 days
• AfC deleted declined/rejected reviews, last month

So for some quite an extra number of reviews, I have 928 non deleted reviews but also 282 deleted ones (23%)

So we are actually doing a lot more reviews than the 7972 non deleted reviews in the last month, at least an additional 1464. Cheers KylieTastic (talk)

Weird... there are some negative numbers at the bottom of those stats. -2pou (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

2pou the deleted review number is made up from the number of decline notes on user pages minus the number of actual declines and rejects on undeleted articles. So if users don't leave talk page messages the number will be lower than the true number, and if someone leaves no messages then it goes negative. Thus the figures are minimums only. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I've declined 12 in the last four days; but I don't seem to appear in any of the lists above...am I doing something wrong? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, found myself with "zero" ... hmmm...I'm using AFCH and leaving messages on the talk pages... ? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Goldsztajn those are my lists to show how many declined reviewed articles were then deleted. I've just updated the reports and on the monthy and 7 days both show 12, and the 24 hour shows 3. So no your not doing anything wrong. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Bug with AFC helper script

Here, the declining comment doesn't seem to have worked properly (probably because I used {{tq}}). ―Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's because you typed {tq instead of {{tq. For what it's worth I fixed both instances. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks. ―Qwerfjkltalk 17:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Need second opinion on Draft:Nanky

The creator of this submission insists the submission passes WP:MUSICBIO, although I am unsure of it passing. Need a second opinion. Eternal Shadow Talk 17:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

At this exact moment I would decline as adv due to over-use of "dropped", "bagged", etc. I was going to say that the awards/contests won might be enough for MUSICBIO 8/9, but it seems like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanky determined them to not be sufficient.

A borderline case either way, though if it were accepted there would need to be cleanup so it didn't immediately get hit with a G4/G11 combo. Would still likely be brought back to AFD on account of the previous creations and salting. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about specific MUSICBIO criteria being met, that does seem arguable, but it looks to me that it likely meets the GNG requirements based on available sourcing from Ghanaian sources. Some examples:

• It’s about time we do with highlife, what Nigeria has done with afrobeats - Singer Nanky - Pulse Magazine
• Nanky and King Promise hit sweet spots on new single and video ‘Cassette’ - News Ghana
• Nanky wins 2021 VGMAs Unsung Award - MusicInAfrica Magazine
• Nanky pairs with King Promise for the ultimate croon tune 'Cassette' - ModernGhana
• Confusion! Nanky hires Medikal to diagnose faux good friends in new one - Live Ghana TV
• It’s about time we do with Highlife, what Nigeria has done with Afrobeats – Nanky - NET 2 Television
• Nanky gets a big ‘favour’ from Sarkodie - YFMGhana

Each of his singles seems to have received reliable source coverage to some extent. Silverseren^C 17:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that Ghanaian press is more likely to have articles about new releases by Ghanaian artists, and thus short pieces like the last four are more towards WP:MILL than true "in-depth coverage". As a corollary/example from another genre, I find EDM-specific labels and news outlets are not-significant enough for EDM releases (at least from a GNG/notability perspective). In reading through the AFD that seems to be the opinion of those involved as well, and why I'm somewhat on the fence about the acceptability of this draft. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this one of those "If it's country-specific press, then it counts as local, but US press is an exception" sort of argument? Because I fully oppose both US-centric and English-centric nonsense claims. Silverseren^C 18:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question in one word, no.

I don't count it as local, I count it as "we'll publish everything we have". I feel exactly the same about every business in India, because their press will publish literally anything on anybody. For what it's worth, if it's a press-release style story about a song, video, etc that someone has released, and it's between 2-5 paragraphs, I do not consider it significant coverage (regardless of country). Primefac (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User UNfriendly

When I typed in a topic on the Wikipedia search page, I got a notice that such an article does not exist. I was told that I could ask for it to be created by clicking on the link that brought me to Articles for Creation. Nowhere on that page is there an easily findable link to a place where someone can simply request that an article about X be created. Only if out of frustration, curiosity or irritation someone comes to this talk page does one get a link to a page that (presumably) actually is where a suggested topic can be posted.79.134.37.73 (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation is an area where you can create articles yourself. I believe you are looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles. Once there just click the link to the area the article is in and you can add it there in the appropriate section! (For example, if I wanted to request an article for something relating to the heart, I would scroll to the "Medicine" section, click on the link that says "Anatomy", and then add it to the "Heart" section). Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

My point is that when looking to see if article X exists, I am not directed to Wikipedia:Requested articles despite the Wikipedia metatext giving that impression. What I was implicitly calling for is for searchers to be shown that link when they expect to see it. As it now is, I get "The page "United States Indian Band" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." When I click on that link, I get a long page about creating (not requesting) an article. The actual link to requesting one is the last bullet point under "creating an article." I'm sorry, but it is far from obvious that I would find a 'suggest' link under a 'create' section. Please, can't we make the page more user friendly? (The comment below about there already being too many unfulfilled requests is really beside the point.) 79.134.37.73 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not actually an AFC thing; the text you're referring to comes from {{No article text}}, and suggestions for changes to that template should be made on its talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's not an Articles for Creation (AFC) thing (though in my understanding of the words, it could well be), then why do I get sent to AFC when I am told,"You can ask for it to be created"? (The page that sends me there is the one that comes up when I search for a non-existent article; and that page is labeled a special page with no talk option.) 79.134.37.73 (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I'm looking at the page that comes up when you open a non-existent article and I don't see that. It does say that you can add a request for it, and that links to Requested Articles. Zoozaz1 talk 03:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a shortage of articles to write about. We have a shortage of people writing articles. If you want an article to be created on a topic, why are you not interested in creating it yourself? It takes me several hours of my personal time to write a half-decent article on a topic. I can't do this at a higher rate than I already do, and at the rate I do, my list of articles to create is ever-increasing. We have a page for requesting articles to be created, linked by the person who replied above, but it is very rare that requests are enacted upon because that means someone was willing to spend several hours of their time because someone spent a single minute suggesting something. — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv-that's an interesting point. Do we have statistics as to what percentage of requested articles are written ultimately, by someone other than the requester? 2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That statistic is pretty much impossible to get, so no. Curbon7 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I've helped out in the "companies" section of WP:RA. I can tell you from anecdotal experience, it is quite inactive. I am confident than much less than 1% of company articles listed there get written. I've floated the idea of shutting it down before, but the talk page is quite inactive too. Overall, I worry that we give new editors false hope by keeping it open, but I also don't want to stir up a hornet's nest by MFDing it or RFCing it. I always try to tell editors to ignore RA and use AFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Novem - then I completely agree with you. I would add to what you are saying, an editor listing there (as I have) will not then write an article on the subject herself, thinking someone else is now likely to. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

My reply above might get overlooked, so for the record the issues described here are regarding {{No article text}}, and issues with the text should be discussed at its talk page. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion on Zhang Tao

Hi. Could I have an opinion please on Draft:Zhang Tao? He is a top official in China's space agency and has been accused of a serious assault on two scientists. Was he sufficiently notable prior to the alleged assault, is the coverage sufficient or are the victims sufficiently notable to meet WP:PERPETRATOR? The assault was covered in for example the FT and CNN. I had asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and had one reply but would like to build a consensus. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Decker (disambiguation)

Hi, I may have screwed up here - this is me with my rookie problems again. This disambig was declined by Novem Linguae, and then came to me. Novem Linguae had already dealt with it by adding a hatnote, so no disambig was required, so I rejected it and made a comment about resubmitting unchanged. However, looking again, I suspect it wasn't resubmitted - I see Novem Linguae declined it only minutes before I rejected it, which means we were looking at the same draft at the same time. That raises a host of rookie questions. Did I do something wrong to end up reviewing an item that another user had just finished reviewing? Was I right to reject? (There is a choice of only two reasons for rejecting - lack of notability and contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia, neither of which really fit here.) Can I still change my comment, which presumably was unfairly critical of the user? And is there any way to tell when a draft was submitted / resubmitted for review? That doesn't seem to appear in the article history. I feel a bit like my four-year-old son when he has just messed up his mother's knitting. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Doric Loon. Thanks for the ping. I think they resubmitted it quickly after I declined it. I noticed and I purposely left it in the queue for someone else to look at. Now the link doesn't work at all, looks like the person might have {{db-author}}'d it. Anyway, I think you're in the clear. Hope that helps :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, guess I should respond to the rest of your post too. For whatever reason, submissions don't post with a comment. The easiest way is to look in the history for an edit that is around +60 characters added (although this can vary). I almost never reject, but some do. If it doesn't fit the notability one, I would just pick the other one, that's kind of the miscellaneous category. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For a timeline (now that it's deleted), it was declined at 10:04, resubmitted at 10:11, and rejected at 10:50. Submissions are not indicated in the history (at least as far as edit summaries go), but there's nothing really to do about that.

To answer the somewhat-moot-but-still-valid first question, if you double-review something by mistake (the script isn't great at sensing edit conflicts) just undo your edits regarding the review, which in this case would be on the draft and the user talk.

To answer (somewhat) your second question, there is the should-only-be-used-in-cases-like-this custom decline reason, in which you'd likely say something along the lines of "there is a hatnote and a dab page is not needed". That being said, a rejection is still probably fine, since a dab isn't needed, though the extra explanation offered by a normal decline can sometimes make it easier to understand. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your prompt and helpful explanations.--Doric Loon (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Katja Bednařik Sudec

An unfortunate thing happened with Draft:Katja Bednařik Sudec - the original author (User:Non-diotima1) didn't like my comments and deleted them manually, thus messing up coding etc. The alert User:CodeLyoko replaced my comment but the coding was still off. I think I have now repaired it manually, but it would be great if somebody could check. Non-diotima1 also sent me a couple of e-mails, which I have answered, but I would prefer discussions were here on talk page. --Doric Loon (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Doric Loon the issue is now moot as they have blanked it and G7 tagged. KylieTastic (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it okay to replace a draft with a redirect?

I'm specifically talking about this new draft Draft:Budget Insurance, which I don't think is or ever will be notable; therefore, rather than declining it, I would like to redirect it to the parent company article BGL Group. So three questions:

1. Can this (redirecting from AfC draft) be done, in general?
2. Do others agree it would be the correct thing to do in this particular case?
3. Assuming the answer to either or both of the above is 'yes', what's the correct procedure?

TIA, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, imo, yes to both. decline with a mergeto tag first, and then do the redirection to the page. – robertsky (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Robertsky: I see what you mean, thanks. But is it okay to use the mergeto tag, without then following up with an actual merge (not that there is much to merge here)? I was hoping there would have been some sort of a redir tag, but the only one I could find which mentions redir reads "This is not the correct place to request new redirects. Please follow the instructions at Articles for creation/Wizard-Redirects" so clearly that's not right for this purpose. Cheers, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

DoubleGrazing, hmm... well.. you can also just leave it at the mergoto tag, and let the author work on it further later. – robertsky (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd personnaly leave it tagged. While there is nothing technically wrong with redirecting, one of the reasons Draft space is here is for new editors to try things out and learn and get advice from other editors as Wikipedia has some pretty nuanced guidelines that take some getting used to. I'd make sure the decline and declining comment is up for a while to make sure the editor is actually able to learn from it. If new, it's doubtful they know where to find page histories. Not many people will even know the Draft is there since it is not indexed, and leaving a draft up doesn't hurt anything as it will eventually get G13 deleted if the editor abandons it. All that is just to say I dont think it's wrong, but I dont see a big upside, but that's just me. -2pou (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: good points. Although, if one accepts the contention that an article like this would not survive long in the main space and would instead either be deleted or redirected, then arguably that also would also be a useful learning point for a new editor. But I think you're right; I will just decline it and mention in the comments that this might be a redir candidate. Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Question

Roman Perez was just approved .. but looks quite raw.

Marvin Ramirez as well. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Most reviewers look for at least three independent reliable sources with significant coverage and look to see if the subject meets the relevant Wikipedia definition of notability. They don't look for the perfectly structured article. If you feel that a reviewer has erred in their approval, please ask them about it. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, in addition to the rawness/errors (each is a mess, frankly, and includes text lacking RS ref support), I don't see GNG being met either, if that's why you think it was approved. --2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the question? =p -2pou (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The two questions are -- 1) Should those articles have been created? 2) If not, what should be done about them? 2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If you think that the articles do not meet the WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or to a smaller extent WP:NSPORTS standards, you can take them to AfD. Both articles had been draftify before, and moving them back to draftspace constitutes as move warring. – robertsky (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Theroadislong since he was the accepting reviewer for both. Curbon7 (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The article Roman Perez appears to be in a far worse state now, than when I accepted it, but he does seem to pass WP:NBASKETBALL. Marvin Ramirez only appears to pass WP:GNG, but if you are unhappy feel free to take them to WP:AFD I have no problem with that. Theroadislong (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Focusing on Roman Perez - which I should point out is a jumble of random capitalizations and missing periods and non-grammatical sentences, in addition to clear cruft -- how does it seem to pass wp:nbasketball? Thanks.2603:7000:2143:8500:B537:D8C7:3373:32F0 (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought that playing for the American Professional Basketball League would qualify him, if not please take to WP:AFD. Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Why do you think that is the case? I don't think I see wp rule support for that. If there is none, is there any shortcut to delete it? Among other thinks, I don't think I can start the AfD myself, and if it was promoted only by your good faith mistake ... --2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Anyone can submit an article to AfD see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion no prerequisites - although it is much easiser if you have an account and enable Wikipedia:Twinkle. KylieTastic (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

IPs actually can't directly send an article to AfD, per WP:AFDHOWTO. Instead, they can post a message at WT:AFD, or just ask someone to do it for them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also "random capitalizations and missing periods and non-grammatical sentences" is no reason not to accept, some reviewers do a lot of clean up, other just leave to the gnomes. KylieTastic (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:AFCPURPOSE: The purpose of reviewing is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. Issues that do not affect the likelihood of success at AFD (e.g., halo effects like formatting) should not be considered when making this fundamental calculation. It's nice to go the extra mile and do a little cleanup if you have time/desire, but that is actually a task for main space (as long as it's not incoherent) and is definitely above and beyond the purpose. -2pou (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I am certain I have seen, even this month, cases in which an article was not promoted, because the reviewing editor was critical of fn format, for example. Rather than them taking an approach that would be taken at afd. 2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

What you have seen is human volunteer reviewers making human reviews.

What would be lovely is if you were to elect to have an account, then qualify to be a reviewer and do better than the folk you have seen making what you view as errors. Please join us Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I see reviewers declining purely for aesthetic reasons, I revert their decline. If formatting is part of the decline, then that's less problematic. Primefac (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

See Draft:Center for Rural Development - where the most recent editor's comment just now is a concern about "tone." And thus the article is declined. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1841:AF34:6839:55A4 (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That's different, as the use of tone there properly refers to WP:NPOV issues. Curbon7 (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV was mentioned as a second issue. But frankly, I'm not seeing it. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1841:AF34:6839:55A4 (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Frivolous declination

for example, i have objected to moving Anna Kitex Group away, so it should be immediately moved back. users should pay attention to talk pages. -- RZuo (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• RZuo if you objected to the move you should have talked to the mover DMySon who does not appear to be an AfC reviewer, they would be unlikely to have seen that you wrote "I object to moving the page" on the talk page after they moved it. As for AfC the two reviewers Theroadislong and TheBirdsShedTears obviously agree with DMySon. However no reviewer will just accept a submission because the author demands it. You can always choose to move back yourself and if anyone disagrees they can they take it to AfD. KylieTastic (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

1. do not change my comment.
2. page movers are accountable for their moves. being accountable, they have no excuse for "being unlikely to have seen that you wrote "I object to moving the page" on the talk page after they moved it".
3. page movers should clear their own mess since only they have suppressredirect.--RZuo (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo: erm... with regards to point 2, do not assume that everyone keeps every single article they have touched on their watchlist. ping them with the {{re}} template in your message. on point 3, at this point, DMySon does not have page mover permission. There is also the WP:BRD principle, which affords everyone the right to revert changes others had made. a note on technicalities, you can always revert a redirect, provided that the redirect page has no subsequent edits. even if there is a subsequent edit after using the draftification script, the script will tag the redirect with a CSD R2 and admins are pretty efficient in deleting such redirects. – robertsky (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank You KylieTastic for taking me here. The available references do not establish the notability of the company, fails GNG. DMySon (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The draftification was not frivolous, and I concur with the draftification and the two declines. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't appear to have ever edited the draft page, just one message on a talk. This is also after the page has moved. If you object, then you have to bare the burden of moving the article yourself. Bare in mind, if you did this, it would likely then be taken to WP:AfD. You appear to be following a user around doing this, which is bizarre. If you move a page, you are in no way required to check a talk page after the move to make sure that no users are going to object. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion is focusing more on process than on the draft. That does a disservice to our readers. Yes, DMySon's initial draftification was sound. Yes, RZuo objecting on the draft's talk page without using any kind of notification template was unlikely to be noticed. Yes, Theroadislong's AfC decline was sound. Yes, RZuo seems to have arrived at this topic because DMySon draftified one of their articles. However, it is not RZuo's burden to move this page back to article space themselves, although they may do so. According to WP:DRAFTIFY it is DMySon's responsibility, now that they know that anyone objects, to return the page to article space, even if they don't believe it meets GNG.

The draft is poorly written, so it may not be obvious, but the topic is notable. As WP:THREE, I would submit [8][9][10]. If that isn't convincing, there are another seven refideas on the talk page. Where one draws the line between the group and their charitable/political organization, Twenty20 Kizhakkambalam, is open for debate, but I feel there's enough material for reasonably complete articles about both. For these reasons I've accepted the draft. Any of you may take it AfD if you wish, but I hope everyone will instead invest their energy in improving it or other content. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

in conclusion, this thread shows many users often engaged in this process dont even know the procedure. it doesnt matter whatever you think about the articles. as long as someone objects to moving them, they have to be moved back.

familiarise yourselves with the correct procedures first, before going around and judging other people's work.--RZuo (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RZuo. The solution for next time is to 1) post on the draftifier's user talk page so they see it, or 2) move it back yourself (which is allowed and does not require any special page mover rights). I agree with others that posting an objection on a draft talk page, without pinging anybody, is very unlikely to be seen. This works for contesting CSDs because the admin is supposed to check the talk page, but this does not work for draftifications. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021 backlog drive

The Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Drive has started. Please sign up and help out! I've also asked for more opinions on the new scoring system on the drive's talk page. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for setting these pages up. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have a few questions. First, what counts as a review? Does that mean that I either accept or decline a draft? Second, what should I do differently or in addition to using the script for a review to count as part of the backlog drive? Third, are the interim scores viewable anywhere? Fourth, what is a re-review? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to second the question about re-reviews. What is the mechanism for doing a re-review and how do I log it? Is there a tool for this? Thanks, Laplorfill (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A review is accepting, declining, or rejecting. You don't need to do anything special besides just using the script. I'm still working on the scoring system, but that'll be done soon. And re-reviews will be done similarly to last time; each participant will have a page listing all of their reviews, and other participants can pick a review and mark it either "passed" or "failed", with the opportunity for follow-up discussion. Re-reviews will be made available when the scoring system starts working. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find the current results table for the current backlog drive. Has the link been temporarily removed? it's cetainly not at all obvious. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics

I've started a thread about this particularly prolific submitter to AFC at the admins' incidents noticeboard; please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Liverpoolpics et al: Bizarre editing pattern. Graham87 19:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What we're learning from the July 2021 Backlog Drive

This is as good a place as any for us to jot down notes of things we're learning. The idea is that they help us when creating subsequent drives. Discuss or not at your own discretion. My idea is simply to bullet the things we find that will be useful got the future, or anomalies, or just 'stuff'. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

1. Anomaly Those who deal with drafts that have been moved by others to main space get no obvious crfedit for handling them. It's not a biggy, but I don't want subsequent drives to make these folk feel their work is not worthy of inclusion. I doubt we can work out a scheme to included them in the current drive Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
2. Anomaly Draftification is as much of a review as a formal review. As in 1, above, a credit mechanism might be worked out Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I am not sure that I understand what the anomalies are. I think that I understand item 2, which is the moving of an article to draft space when it was not ready for article space. Of course, that doesn't reduce the backlog, but it does mean that the reviewer spent at least as much time reviewing as on a decline of a draft that was already in draft space. Isn't an AFD also a review then? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Good catch. Sending for deletion, any deletion process, is a review Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I understand item 1. Does this have to do with cases where the page was created in both draft space and article space? If so, if the reviewer declines the draft because the article 'exists', they get credit. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Forgive my lack of clarity. over item 1. Assume article Z is created as a draft by user 1. User 1 thinks it is ready and moves it to become an article. They are 100% entitled to do so, but they leave the AFC artefacts behind. They fail to complete the task. User:George_Reviewer sees article Z in maim space in the category that shows it to be there, and looks at it. George either removes the AFC artefacts, or draftifies the article, or does something entirely different (forgive my imperfect usage of 'either' for more than two things). I see it as an anomaly the George, who has reviewed the article albeit in the less usual manner, does not get some sort of credit for their work.

Does that help? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Yes. Clear as branch water. Both of the anomalies have to do with articles that went into article space other than via AFC, and that is all right. The first case has to do with a draft that was moved from AFC draft and still has the AFC template with the stupid incorrect message. The second case has to do with any article that is draftified, whether it had ever been in draft space, or was created in article space. The third case, that I mentioned, is where, rather than draftifying the article that is not ready for article space, the reviewer nominates it for AFD. All of them involve work that is equivalent to a conventional review. It is clear if you are saying that those scenarios all involve review that is equivalent to a regular AFC review. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I had to work out if branch water was clear or muddy. That expression doesn't exist in my life. Yup, we got there Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - If the water from a mountain branch appears to be brown, it may be because it has been mixed with a distilled spirit. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I will take this occasion to give two lectures that I have given before, that are oriented to anyone who is listening (not replies to Fiddle Faddle). First, change the wording of the template message when a draft has been moved into article space. It normally has not been accepted through AFC. Second, if an article has already been draftified once, and is moved back into article space, and is still not ready for article space, do not draftify it again. That would be move-warring. Nominate for AFD instead (and one possible result of the AFD is to draftify it). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A question about the July 2021 backlog drive

Where can I see metrics showing either the work done by the reviewers or the day-to-day figures for the backlog showing it being worked off? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is this [11]. Theroadislong (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Also the daily figure left on a day-to-day basis can be seen on the graph at the top, and the daily amount of reviews (not including deletions) is here. I'm updating all my stats at least twice a day while this drive is ongoing. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

KylieTastic, I have updated the query to lock in on those who have registered for this backlog drive. the current table looks too long, and contains non afc reviewers even. – robertsky (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see where we're reviewing the reviews. This is a critical thing to have done as backlog drives in this WikiProject were abandoned because of the bad reviewing common to everything with a gamification mechanism. Also, where is this automated scoring system? How would we even assess rewards after the fact without going through a reviewer's reviews through their contributions log? Chris Troutman (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey Chris troutman I believe this is being worked on see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/July 2021 Backlog Drive but hopefully soon. This has been a somewhat haphazard backlog drive, but so far effective and I think we can have confidence that Enterprisey will get the data updated. We are reliant for these things to have someone who is an admin, technical and willing... so a very small group. It's been a bit of a slap-dash start, but hopefully things will start falling into place soon. KylieTastic (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)