Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

"Last chance" template

I believe I've seen stuff around that say something like "if this draft is declined again, it will be rejected/can not be resubmitted" or something like that. What is it? And how does one do that/is it possible with the helper script? Also when should it be used? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

User:GoldRomean - Were you asking for a semi-standard message to provide? If you are declining a draft with the helper script, you can include the {{noimprove}} or {{rapidresub}} templates in the decline text. Or you can write your own message, either as a template or just as text, but I infer that you were asking for something already written. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know you could use templates in the decline text. GoldRomean (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The AFC tool supports templates in either the decline text or the comment text. In the decline text, they go both in the AFC comments and on the user talk page of the submitter. In the comment text, they go only in the AFC comments, although I would like to put them on the user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Do people who tend to leave really constructive decline messages (like @Cabrils) have their own templates they use? I’ve copied some of Cabrils wording to a page in my user space and adapted and added a bit - is this the way people typically do it, or is there something more clever? Thanks for the tips about existing templates like these! Lijil (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words @Lijil. I basically created a template based on answers I found myself repeatedly writing, and from some answers I saw posted that I thought we very helpful. Of course each review requires a custom answer, but a template makes the process a lot more efficient. I didn't know about the {{noimprove}} or {{rapidresub}} so thanks for sharing that info GoldRomean, I will look into it. I'm not aware of any official template answer -- maybe those are what you're looking for? If some of my answers seem helpful by all means copy whatever suits. Cabrils (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I know that Robert and I have created templates that allow for repeat messages, most of which are found at Category:AfC comment templates, though it does sound like other folk create them as well. Primefac (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, there are so many templates! Thanks to you all for sharing this. Lijil (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I also wasn't aware of all those! Thanks for creating them, I can definitely see at least a few being pretty useful :). GoldRomean (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Backlog drive?

Redirects created from this page and G5

Hey all! Recently, I was involved in finding sockpuppets of the a user (see their SPI page here) that frequently requests that redirects be created from this page. I am aware of well over 100 such redirects that were created following a request on this page. Are these redirects eligible for G5? Because the guidelines are unclear. By the way, some of the redirects in question are all of the ones that go to Koji Suzuki#Bibliography and all of the ones that go to Manga Up!#Manga Up! Global titles. Link20XX (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

That is a question for WT:CSD, not here, but I think you should ping the AFC helpers who created those pages and ask that they G7 them. Primefac (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I will look into doing that. Though that doesn't apply to redirects like Sadako-san and Sadako-chan, with nonsignificant edits all done by sockpuppets of the same user. Anyways, thanks for the advice. Link20XX (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Since all revisions were reverted, one could make the argument that the "G5" portion of it was already handled. If you really wanted to get into the technical weeds, I could delete the page, restore only the redirect (since that would effectively "G5" the sock creation) and then ask the creator to G7 it. In this particular case, though, I'm going to let Cactusisme know that I'm deleting it as a page created as (accidental) proxy (with no prejudice against them) and recreate it should they request. Primefac (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted, thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Major disputes

I noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for Neutral Review: Repeated AfC Rejection Despite Independent Sources and I'm wondering whether we should seriously think about a "three strikes, and it's AFD time" rule. One of the disputed drafts was declined nine times.

I don't think that AFC should have to review the same article nine times, or even five. I think reviewers should have the option of sending persistent resubmissions to WP:AFD, which is the canonical and authoritative process for determining whether the subject is notable. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this not the purpose of rejection as opposed to simply declining? CoconutOctopus talk 20:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

A rejection response can be reverted or removed. It can also be dismissed as "just one person's opinion". Neither of those are true about AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I mean if something is rejected and it is removed then 9 times out of ten someone will just reject it again, and if it is repeated and disruptive then it can already go to MfD (drafts cannot go to AfD, and MfD doesn't check for notability at all AFAIK). Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Something that's deleted due to lack of notability (and therefore AFD) can be kept deleted, via {{db-repost}} if necessary. An MFD deletion can be harder to enforce, even though G4 technically applies to all namespaces. And I agree with you: MFD doesn't seem to care about notability. I think we'd get a better, more durable answer from AFD, even if that requires moving the article to the mainspace (though I'd rather just create an exception in the AFD rules). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That just doesn't feel fair (and a little WP:BITEy) to the submitter to give them false hope by moving it to mainspace first, and would probably be very confusing to then immediately nominate it for deletion. I would much rather just wait for G13 instead. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If waiting for G13 were viable, then I think that would usually be best.

But when someone re-re-re-re-submits the article regularly, then "waiting for G13" could take years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

As you say, declines/rejects can be (and are) removed, though as the templates state they shouldn't be but how would one easily know your proposed "three strikes" is met in those circumstances where an editor keeps removing them, which is the case here? And I am baffled by your ""just one person's opinion" statement when the whole premise of your proposal is a draft being declined multiple times so can't be "just one person's opinion" (unless it is by the same reviewer). And sure, a reviewer can accept an article then nom for AfD, but that's at their discretion as is rejecting a draft. I also don't think we should be making changes based on one ANI complaint by a paid editor (initially UPE but that was resolved) who is now blocked S0091 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Nine declines followed by one rejection might be ten editors, but the rejection itself is "just one person's opinion". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

To avoid repetition, two things: first, we should not be accepting drafts just to AFD them. Second, I agree with S0091 that this is not (yet) an issue we necessarily need to be spending a lot of bandwidth on. Primefac (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn't AFC accept drafts just to AFD them, when NPP accepts articles just to AFD them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Draftspace was created with the goal in mind of protecting pages from deletion so they can be worked on. Mainspace has different/higher expectations about page quality and deletion, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - NPP doesn't "accept" articles, they "patrol" them, which needs to be done for quality checking. Obviously if a patrol fails then the article is sent to AFD. Primefac (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, let's not forget that AfD isn't watertight by any means. Once an article has been published, the onus is on AfD to change that. Some discussions get very little participation, or even none, which frequently results in keep-by-default or at best soft deletion. So if we start knowingly releasing articles which we think aren't fit to publish, any number of them could end up surviving AfD. (Not to mention, that would make the already-congested AfD congesteder still.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I think if an article was resubmitted after rejection we'd normally MfD them, but I could be convinced to move and then AfD in some cases (or, if they've had several declines, they'd probably be autoconfirmed as well, so they can move it themselves and have it AfDed, and I'm open to telling them that). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Question

New to AFC. I read the policies and am still a little confused as to what it means to reject a draft vs. to decline it and when you should do each. Can someone explain? » Gommeh (he/him) 05:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Declines are much more common than rejects. Rejects take away the "resubmit" button and mean that the draft has a fundamental problem (such as WP:NOT or completely non-notable) that no amount of improvement can overcome. If unsure, just always decline. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

If there is no amount of editing that an editor can do to make a draft acceptable (think GARAGEBAND-type or college-student-autobio scenarios) reject it, otherwise find a good decline reason. As Novem said, it's better to decline than reject if you're unsure or it's on the borderline. Primefac (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Saving history of redirect before replacing

I don't know if this is more a question for AN or here, but I'll start here. I'm about to accept Draft:Exit Music (For a Film), but there's an existing redir at Exit Music (For a Film) with significant history which presumably needs to be kept. I've read the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions#Edit_history_of_destination_page (#3 applies here), but am none the wiser. Can someone tell me in words of no more than two syllables where I'm supposed to squirrel the redir's history? Or, as the case may be, tell me how I got this wrong. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Is it not a matter of performing a WP:HISTMERGE? Merge the redirect into the draft and then move it? CoconutOctopus talk 10:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think a history merge would work here, since there's a block of uninterrupted edits at Exit Music (For a Film) and a block of uninterrupted edits at Draft:Exit Music (For a Film), and the dates of those edits don't overlap at all. Combining their histories would not be confusing. Special:MergeHistory. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

No, no, and three times no. Histmerges are for fixing copy/paste pagemoves, where attribution is lost because content from A ends up at B without the proper notices. "These two articles are about the same subject" is not an appropriate use of a histmerge.

If there is history to be kept, the redirect can either be swapped with the draft (tagging with {{r with history}}) or move it to a plausible disambiguator and point it back to the original target: for example, if "Joe Bloggs" redirects to "The Joe Bloggs Band" and there's a good draft about Joe, move Joe's redirect to "Joe Bloggs (musician)" or similar. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that is what I had in mind to do. What confused me was, the closing instructions linked to above talk about archiving the history into the talk namespace, which was something I'd not come across before. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I've seen that done before, where the old page is put as an "archive" as a talk subpage. I don't know if that's really done any more. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Move the existing redirect to Exit Music (For a Film) (song)Exit Music (For a Film) (song), accept the draft, and then edit the redirect Exit Music (For a Film) (song)Exit Music (For a Film) (song) from the following:

#REDIRECT [[OK Computer]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from song}}
{{R with possibilities}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}

to the following:

#REDIRECT [[Exit Music (For a Film)]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
{{R with history}}
}}

After that, place a note at the article's talk page showing that the former history has been moved to Exit Music (For a Film) (song)Exit Music (For a Film) (song). GTrang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have accepted the draft (with the pre-existing redirect moved to Exit Music (For a Film) (song)Exit Music (For a Film) (song)) for you. Next time, if you see a draft where the corresponding mainspace title has significant history, you should leave it for another reviewer to handle. GTrang (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Why? DG is a perfectly capable reviewer. Primefac (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

One is fortunate to have you here, to do the big boy stuff that oneself is not capable of handling. Especially when there is so much time pressure on the matter, apparently. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Users

There are spammy users adding content from an article. Banovercheckcross (✔✘) 12:18, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Where? Rambley (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

in the redirect submissiona Banovercheckcross (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Questions from a newbie

Hi there. I am a bit confused about copyvios - if they have close paraphrased (which seems to be a common issue) but not literally copied and pasted from a source, do we still need to remove all affected material, request oversight, and possibly send to speedy? I thought that would only be if they've literally copied a source word-for-word but the big message saying "Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the cleanup instructions." still appears. Sorry if I'm missing the obvious here.

Also while I'm here I thought I'd ask - I tried to sign up for the Backlog Elimination Drive and I don't think the bot has realised. Am I ineligible if I'm on probation, or is the bot being silly, or am I being silly? Thanks, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 22:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

On the note about the backlog drive; the bot updates review counts, tracked reviews and re-reviews daily at about 2-4pm UTC. If you do a few reviews now, at that time tomorrow the bot will update everyone's scores accordingly. If you've signed yourself up to the list, you should be good. Rambley (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I would only use the the cv decline if is actually a copyright-violation that needs redaction or deletion. Otherwise if another decline is applicable use that and mention the close paraphrasing. If its acceptable do that and tag as {{Close paraphrasing}}. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

One can also use it as a secondary decline reason, especially if the removed text takes away a lot of context. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted; I will retrace my steps and make sure reviews are fair to your suggestion. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 12:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@JacobTheRox also note for copyright violations if removal of the copyrighted material would leave viable content thus a G12 is not applicable you can more easily request a CV revision deletion once eth CV content is removed by using a script from Enterprisey. Add this to your common.js

importScript('User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js' ); // Backlink: User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js - Revision deletion request under 'Move'

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Wait, whats’s “your common.js”? Is that something we’re all supposed to have? Lijil (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Everyone has one. You have already added other this and scripts to yours @ User:Lijil/common.js KylieTastic (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing should probably be trimmed, rewritten, or maybe excised, but it's really a case-by-case sort of thing. If you have questions about a specific draft, feel free to post here or on my talk page. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Verfication for draft

Hello! I have written a draft article titled Draft:Pyasi Sham and believe it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and verifiability. I've included reliable references and followed the Manual of Style. Link -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pyasi_Sham

Could someone please review it when available? Thank you Gooshh (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I have submitted it for review for you. KylieTastic (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/feedback

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

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

I, for one, didn't even know it existed. Certainly doesn't seem all that useful to me, but maybe some reviewers who are actually aware of it might disagree? CoconutOctopus talk 16:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Similar to CoconutOctopus, I also had no idea this page really existed. I see the acceptance template a lot but somehow just.. glossed over the feedback page. I think it could potentially be valuable to get feedback from users who got their articles declined as well as accepted, but I worry most of the "feedback" would simply be "Why was my article declined" or some AI response about how their article has been reviewed for "notability and verifiability". I do think it's something we should consider, though. Rambley (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I would support removing links to the feedback page from the template, and marking the feedback page historical. If nobody is reading the feedback page, then it is just busy work, and that is not ideal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what those people who are reading the feedback are doing; pageviews shows an average (before the last couple of days) of ~14 reads/day, which isn't really much. Clearly the feedback provide there (good or bad) isn't percolating to this board where more than a dozen people will see it.

Personally speaking, I have (almost) every AFC-related page on my watchlist; this is one of the few I do not, because I did not find any use to it and it was not something I felt I needed to keep an eye on. That being said, I also don't have AFCHD on my watchlist for similar reasons, so I will support the majority but if folk do want to keep it I'm not going to advocate against that position (in other words count me as a silent supporter for marking historical). Primefac (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Might be worth keeping for a while after the request for WP:THREE is implemented just to see if we get any feedback about it. S0091 (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Templates & communication

Recently, @I&I22 (full disclosure: I was the first to decline their draft Draft:Marc Mac and later became their adopter) contacted me asking (what I thought) were some pretty interesting questions about AfC - specifically, I’m taking here some ideas I got about their question about our templated decline notices. I’ve included my takes and I’m looking for input :)/more opinions.

Decline notices - I think it would be helpful for a lot of people if they were able to access more specific feedback. Obviously, the templates can be helpful, but when a good-faith editor tries their best to resolve an issue, and is met with the exact same decline and reason again and again, it can be seen as sort of unintentionally WP:BITEy and discouraging. In I&I's case, for example, I think they could really use some specific feedback. But then, there’s the question of reviewer time and the backlogs.

On a smaller note, perhaps we could make it more clear in the template that a simple “reply” might get missed by reviewers/and or create a template for reviewers along the lines of “sorry, I can’t get to this right now, try the help desk instead” (sorry in advance to our diligent AFCHD helpers).

Note: I use I&I22 as an example specifically because they brought this up. This discussion shouldn't be about them or their draft specifically. And in case something came off wrong, I mean no disrespect to the reviewers of his specific draft, many of whom I know as excellent AfC reviewers :).

Interested in what the community thinks. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Regarding decline notices - reviewers should be leaving comments about why they declined, especially if a draft has been declined multiple times, and even if the decline reason is painfully obvious (e.g. no references). The issue we have with too much specificity (which I would say we already have a lot of) is that we end up with dozens of decline reasons that might only be used rarely because they're so niche.

Regarding your smaller note, I don't see an issue with adding on something to the end of the last bullet point of {{AfC decline}} along the lines of "if you reply here be sure to ping the reviewer". Primefac (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

When I started doing this I left a lot more comments. I did sort of give up as it appeared to make little change to the outcome for most, which sucks for those that do read and try to understand. In general I've found the engagement of submitters just getting worse, with the reason in the standard notices clear but just resubmitted without addressing the issue. Also I would note that a lot of reviewers use canned comment responses anyway (templates or cut-and-paste replies), so we end up with just two templates. As always it would be easier to advocate clear custom comment responses if there were enough volunteers. I find that writing a custom comment increases the review time (especially for obvious failures) up to 10 fold, and then if they just ask why it's just a waste of time. I'm very willing to discus with those that are interested but I find the majority of submitters now put little to no effort in so I have no motivation left to try. This has got way worse with AI slop submissions and responses. I do think it should be encouraged for multi declined drafts, I do groan inside when I see the 3+ declines and no comments. KylieTastic (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@GoldRomean @KylieTastic Thank you so much for making the time to consider these issues! I very much appreciate the consideration. In my limited experience navigating and learning about Wikipedia with the awesome help of GoldRomean, I feel that there are some major glitches that need to be addressed within the editing process.

In some cases, the editing process feels a bit like gatekeeping. I feel that a reviewer "should" commit to articles as the authors do. Absolute power leads to absolute corruption...aka gatekeeping with limited accountability. Creation versus hierarchy.

Who gets in, who doesn't, who has the time and resources to keep working for free, who has the time to put in quality efforts...there are many factors to consider.

That is a very interesting comment regarding engagement KyleTastic.

I feel that the only way to navigate a lack of engagement is to strengthen the "why's" of why people do things, why people spend their very valuable life minutes, hours, days, months volunteering and collectively strengthening the resource and community that is Wikipedia. The clear why leads to commmunity building and rapport and having a clear collective vision on why people are doing what they are doing.

I find that there exist tricky tensions within Wikipedia protocols and standards, in part due to being a system borne within and reactive against capitalist contexts and conditioning.

For example: We Wikipedia contributors are rewarded for "quantity" which may work against "quality".

And "conflict of interest" aka " a lack of trust and/or assuming negative intent" becomes an issue with increased familiarity and strengthened rapport. This works against community building while ensuring the general quality.

I understand the frustration of feeling that people are making less effort.

It is tempting to come to what may seem to be obvious conclusions about the masses.

However,and this is unsolicited advice, it is very dangerous to be fatigued into binary thinking and assumptions.

Yes AI is a boring force to contend with. Yes, humanity's best has never blossomed within excessive convenience and YET we must persevere so that we can postpone our species' relinquishing of creative skillsets, collective legacy building, imagination, discernment, work ethic, collaboration and love of community and consequent descent into an era of Idiocracy. EEEEK!

A challenge and yes mos def it can be done!

I am here to support this mission. Many more thoughts on this matter as well used to grassroots community microactions to whip institutions into accountability. Take heart :) It is a challenge and opportunity to learn and improve things! We are at the amaing point within our collective human timeline of deciding what we will support and which way we will go. Shall we support humans, community, land stewardship, healthy economies, equitable living, communal action, human efforts, living imperfectly or something else?

The consequent learnings from this opportunity are transferrable lessons and skills.

The decisions will strengthen Wikipedia and the kind community of supporters.

All of these issues are surely challenges and lessons that are floating about our collective zeitgest.

Warm regards & In solidarity, I&I22 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

We Wikipedia contributors are rewarded for "quantity" which may work against "quality". I don't agree. Or rather, I don't understand what kind of reward you are talking about. Could you clarify a bit? --bonadea contributions talk 18:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. I agree with you and unfortunately I don’t think much can be done; if we had a few dozen quality submissions a day, I bet we would give more feedback and possibly even help improve drafts more to get them over the line, but the problem is we probably get dozens, if not hundreds, and a lot of them are COI/NPOV AI-generated advertising. And they are ever growing :(. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback requested - Article Wizard prompt for WP:THREE

Per a a discussion at the Village Pump @Chaotic Enby has proposed updated code for the Article Wizard to prompt submitters for WP:THREE. Please provide feedback at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submission wizard#Improvement to let users provide WP:THREE sources. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

About 2 drafts

Hello, i am a novice editor and I would like to know if the 2 articles I wrote (Draft: The Walt Disney Company Iberia and Draft: Disney Media Networks Latin America) meet the requirements to be accepted. Well, I decided to improve the one about Draft: Disney Media Networks Latin America by adding references after a reviewer rejected it because I had forgotten to add references. But I would like to know if you could accept them or how else I could improve them. CartoonsFan113 (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CartoonsFan113 you have submitted them for review so a review will take a look in due time. In the interim, have a look at Your first article. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @CartoonsFan113- both drafts are in the review pile and will be reviewed in due course. You're asking for a "pre-review", which we don't really do. If declined again, the reviewer will state why and give some advice. qcne (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious draft

Hello, I have a question. When I checked this draft, I saw that a page with this same title was deleted a month ago because it was created by a banned user. I suspect this new draft was created by a sock-puppet, but I am unsure about how to proceed. Should it be deleted outright or be reviewed like a normal draft? Thanks in advance NeoGaze (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I would open up an SPI report. qcne (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

An SPI is only useful for accounts, since a CU cannot link an IP to an address. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite likely AungKaung932, they specialise in Burmese / SE Asian beauty pageants and related topics.

Up to you whether you want to review the draft; G5 deletion is optional, not obligatory. Personally, I don't think it's a good policy to allow block evaders to create content because that tacitly approves it, but I'm aware there are other views also on this.

I've blocked the IP for evasion. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

And I've deleted the draft. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Extra points

Moved from ‹The template Format linkr is being considered for merging.› Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/June 2025 Backlog Drive

Hi all, in an effort to help promote quality reviews, we are going to be offering two new review lists from some non-participants for folks to re-review. Re-reviews on this page will contribute to your score and allow you to gain some extra points in these last few days. If anyone is interested, the pages are here and here. Cheers! Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 16:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I suggest putting this over at the WikiProject's main talk page... not sure if this talk page gets much visibility. LR.127 (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

oh.

hello, main talk page. LR.127 (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Points for these now added to the leaderboard. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Tags and edit summaries

Hey folks, as of a few days ago edits made with AFCH will now have an AFCH tag to show that it was made with the tool. From now on, if you see a draft "reviewed" with the old "(AFCH)" link in the edit summary itself it is NOT a review from an actual reviewer. It won't affect our day-to-day editing of course, but I know some folks like to track these sorts of things and it will also make checking up on AFCH use a bit easier. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 07:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft rejected

A user rejected a draft, thereby hindering the opportunity to improve and accept it. This option should be used only when it is certain that the draft would be deleted if moved to the mainspace. For more information, see the user's talk page. The user does not have a long history of reviewing articles. 51.175.244.58 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You have no business editing or discussing the subject of the draft, let alone the draft itself. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 01:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for review: Qari Shafiqur Rehman Qasmi

I have created a biographical article draft about Qari Shafiqur Rehman Qasmi in my sandbox. Kindly review it for publication.

Here is the draft: User:Qari_Shafiqur_Rehman_Meerut/sandbox

Thank you! Qari Shafiqur Rehman Meerut (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Qari Shafiqur Rehman Meerut: we don't review drafts on-demand. You will need to submit the draft for review, and it will be reviewed in due course when a reviewer gets around to doing so. I have added the submission template to your draft, you simply need to click on the blue 'submit' button when ready to do so. (That said, I can tell you already now that the draft would be declined in its current state, because it is completely unreferenced. I suggest you attend to this before submitting it.) I've also moved the draft into the Draft: namespace, which is the preferred location for pending drafts; you can now find it at Draft:Qari Shafiqur Rehman Qasmi.

Please note also that this page is for discussing the administration of the AfC project. If you have questions about your draft, or the draft review process more generally, you may pose them at the help desk WP:AFCHD. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

About a Page Acceptance

Hi,

Today, I accepted an article (Book My Show) as part of the article for creation process. However, I discovered adequate coverage to substantiate the notability, but subsequently, I observed a deletion history and the accurate title (BookMyShow), which was blocked in 2017. Although I am uncertain about my decision regarding this matter, I kindly urge that all senior editors verify whether I have made an error. Any individual is free to take this article for AFD. If you think this is a right move, please redirect this to the correct title "BookMyShow". Thank You. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Bakhtar40 only an admin can unprotect the title so it can be moved. Protocol is to ask the protecting admin, in this case Cryptic who is active. Had the admin been unactive, then a request can be made at WP:RFUP. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank You. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Edit filters related to logging and blocking AI edits

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard § Edit filters related to logging and blocking AI edits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Second follow-up: Draft Nelson Sejdija (submitted June 24)

Dear editors,

It has now been over 20 days since I submitted my draft article for review: Draft:Nelson Sejdija

The article has been updated with multiple independent and reliable sources, including interviews and third-party coverage from Telegrafi, NTV, Revista Bordo, MerBraha, and Nacionale.

The subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria as a public figure with verified media presence.

Could a reviewer kindly take a look or let me know if any changes are required?

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Sincerely, Nnelsonsejdija Nnelsonsejdija (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nnelsonsejdija You failed to actually submit that draft for review, so no reviewer has seen it. I have added a template to the top to allow you to submit it for review. qcne (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

(it's also only been 18 days since you created the page not "over 20 days".) qcne (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nnelsonsejdija I have just read the draft in detail: you have provided no evidence this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria. None of your sources are independent, all are likely paid promo pieces. The draft is missing in-line citations. There are tone issues. If submitted for review, this would be a very quick decline. qcne (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you give me any advice or suggestions on how to get started with drafting? Nnelsonsejdija (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:YFA is a good resource. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to review: Sunil Kapoor (shipping executive)

Hello, I’ve written a draft biography of Sunil Kapoor, a shipping executive based in Cyprus. I am associated with the subject but have aimed for a neutral, citation-supported article. Draft link: User:IndoCypriotShipowner/sandbox Requesting help to move it to Draft namespace or review it directly. Thank you. IndoCypriotShipowner (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It is now at Draft:Sunil Kapoor and you may now formally submit it. Before you do, you will need to source or remove the unsourced claims present. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

In the future you may use the Article Wizard to create and submit drafts. Further questions should be asked at the AFC Help Desk; this page is for discussion about the operation of the AFC area. 331dot (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Concern about pattern of promotional biographies being accepted

I'd like to bring attention to a concerning pattern I've noticed with recently accepted biographical articles that appear to violate several core Wikipedia policies. A paid editing service is creating promotional academic biographies that are being accepted through AfC despite significant policy issues.

Pattern observed:

• Multiple biographical articles with similar writing style and structure
• Promotional tone resembling CVs rather than encyclopedic articles
• Heavy reliance on primary sources (subject's own publications, university profiles, ORCID pages)
• Lack of independent secondary sources establishing notability
• Extensive coverage of recent research findings with undue weight
• NPOV violations presenting research as definitive rather than reported findings

Example articles:

• Alberto Izzotti - contains orphan tag, reads promotionally, cites mainly primary sources, and presents research findings without proper context or limitations. A spot-check of any of the citations in the research section will reveal other issues as well.
• Gerhard Rambold - has similar issues, as well as a smell of inexperienced LLM usage resulting in unsourced inferences and editorial interpretations.

These are just two examples, but all of the articles I've looked at written by this editor working for LustrePR have similar problems. Since these articles are products of paid editing services, there are COI issues. Their acceptance suggests reviewers may not be fully recognizing the policy violations, particularly around notability, NPOV, and sourcing standards for biographical articles. Esculenta (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Based on a superficial scan, Izzotti seems notable, or at least not obviously non-notable (h-index 50+, etc.).

The Rambold article never went through AfC, from what I can tell. Yes, it probably should have, given that it's possible paid editing, but IIRC the author only disclosed their paid status after this was created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

If you have concerns as to why a draft was accepted, you should ask the accepting reviewer to elaborate on their reasons. Drafts do not need to be perfect to be accepted. 331dot (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I have concerns about a pattern of draft acceptance, as revealed by policy violations in this editor's accepted articles. Is it not more logical for me to bring up this concern here, rather than haranguing each individual accepting reviewer? Esculenta (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a note Gerhard Rambold was not accepted through AfC. They created it directly in mainspace. S0091 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Esculenta You haven't established that there is a systemic reason at fault here(and one article you mentioned was not accepted via AFC) so yes, if you feel a draft was wrongly accepted, that it irreparably violated guidelines, you should first ask the reviewer why they accepted it, and if unsatisfied, put the article to AFD. Once you have a pattern of several editors having wrongly accepted drafts, then we have something actionable. 331dot (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

My goal is not to get the article deleted, the goal is to have AfD reviewers reject articles built improperly using primary sources (contravening WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY). But it seems these pleas are futile here; I'll tag the offending articles instead. Esculenta (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The other thing you can do is pitch in and help review drafts- then you can be the one declining them for reasons you see. Otherwise, as I said, you should ask reviewers to explain why they accepted a draft that you feel should not have been. Different reviewers can disagree about that in good faith. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPROF is a very permissive WP:SNG. I think it's quite common for professor articles (including in mainspace) to be cited using 1 university bio page and a bunch of the professor's own papers, with no WP:GNG quality sources at all. I imagine NPROF was designed this way to try to counter systemic bias and give professors a leg up over other types of biographies. Not saying I agree with this or have an opinion on it, but this is what I've observed over the years. I think starting a discussion at WT:NPROF (or dropping a link there to this discussion, to keep things centralized) might be a possible next step. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

These are honestly way better than most prof bios. I'm not really seeing a cause for concern here. @Esculenta, you can try to take these through AfD, but I don't think it will succeed. -- asilvering (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Was my post really that unclear? I'm not contesting whether these articles should exist, but that the way the primary sources are used to construct the article contravenes policy. An illustrative example from Alberto Izzotti:

"In his research related to chemoprevention and cancer, Izzotti studied the effectiveness of chemopreventive drugs in preventing cancer and other mutation-related diseases. He reviewed the mechanisms by which chemopreventive drugs offer a promising treatment for most cancers, with particular emphasis on smoking-related end-points. The results of his study established that chemopreventive drugs are effective in preclinical models for modulating a variety of DNA damage as well as cancer-related end-points." This is cited to doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2005.02.029. This source does not mention Izzotti by name, but references one of Izzotti's publications. So the editor used the fact that Izzotti's research was cited in this publication as a justification to write an entire paragraph about his research conclusions - conclusions that are presented as established fact rather than research findings, and which synthesize claims not made in the cited source. This style of article construction is prevalent in the "Research" sections of other academic biographies of the same editor.

This is textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The article takes a source that briefly cites Izzotti's work and extrapolates it into definitive statements about his research impact. Similar issues appear throughout the research section. These aren't "imperfect but acceptable" articles - they're systematically misusing sources in ways that violate core content policies. The concern isn't notability thresholds, but whether we should be accepting articles that demonstrably misrepresent their sources. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think that's the first time you've mentioned SYNTH/OR. If that's your main point of contention, then perhaps lead with that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

That claim would be more properly cited to Izzotti's own research, with a bit of a reword ("his study concluded" rather than "established"), yes. But that's a pretty quick fix. Unless his study does not say anything of the sort? -- asilvering (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Esculenta Was my post really that unclear? No. It was not. However, our role is to accept drafts that we believe have a better than 50% of surviving an immediate deletion process. This means that we accept works in progress which satisfy the relevant criteria. We do not require, nor desire, perfection. Nor does the second line of defence, WP:NPP, which is designed to have greater rigour.

What is your real issue, please? 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:43, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I for one have no issue with NPROF. To my mind, it's just saying that if someone is a genuinely distinguished scientist, that makes them inherently notable, even if they weren't as good at the publicity game as they were in their scientific domain. I'm certainly much more comfortable accepting that, than saying anyone who ever won a seat in some obscure sub-national legislative assembly in a federal country is notable. And don't even get me started on bishops... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that NPROF should be revisited at some point. It is so convoluted and opaque to those not familiar with academia that I simply avoid reviewing professor articles. I also feel like the permissibility of the guideline allow promotional BLP articles, many of which are autobiographies, to flood the AfC queue, which again are difficult and time-consuming to review. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ca, if you notice there are a large volume of them stuck in the AfC queue, it might be a good idea to post about it at WT:NPROF asking for some folks more familiar with the guideline to come help out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm with you @Ca. I avoid PROF as well unless it's obvious one way or the other and many end up sitting which leads me be believe other reviewers are also uncomfortable reviewing them. I often review the back and when I do, about half of the oldest are PROF (probably not now because of the drive). It's also rife with UPE sock farms (firms) where they reach out to the subject and charge them hundreds of dollars. S0091 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

If an accepted page clears the bar for notability but has other problems, by all means tag the page for those problems. To my understanding at least, our role as AfC reviewers is to prevent non-notable subjects and hoaxes from getting through. We don't require ideal sourcing or writing, and I think it's not uncommon to accept a draft but tag or flag issues in the text. BD2412 T 18:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Esculenta, if you’re right, use AfD and demonstrate it. AfC should not be tougher than AfD. If the articles will be kept at AfD then they should be accepted y AfC review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Is it time to promote some members?

Looking at the log, the last time a group of people were promoted from the probationary period was on 23 January. I understand that the administrators around this area has been busy lately, but I'm just sending this message as a small reminder just in case. I'm also checking in to see what happened to the mandatory check after 19 June on TheNuggeteer. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 01:17, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

It's on my list for this weekend, meant to get to it a fortnight ago but spent the weekend doing IRL paperwork for my employer. Primefac (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as TheNuggeteer, I suspect they forgot that I put that requirement on them. Primefac (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:AfC submission § Detecting malformed LLM templates

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC submission § Detecting malformed LLM templates. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:41, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Jimmy's idea on improving AFCH

See User talk:Jimbo Wales#An AI-related idea. – robertsky (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Christ, no. qcne (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Forwarding the comments I made on the underlying issue (courtesy ping to @Jimbo Wales for asking me to move the conversation here):

I genuinely believe that AfC reviewers should be encouraged to leave more specific comments when articles are re-submitted with improvements. If an already declined article is submitted again with minimal change, there isn't much to say, but if the editor genuinely attempts to address the problems pointed in the first decline message, they shouldn't see the same message verbatim without an explanation of where their improvements fell short.
In Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, the "Core purpose" section and the edit workflow both encourage reviewers to leave an explanation and to communicate, but there isn't anything specific about repeat submissions, and the issue you point out should likely be addressed there.

And Jimbo's reply:

I definitely think it would be good to leave an explanation (as specific as possible) and communicate and even, if it's just a few words, to quickly do a fix and accept it and move on. I'm just wondering to what extent we might use technology to support newbies who are trying hard and meeting what appears to be a capricious bureaucracy who aren't explaining anything. (I'm not saying it is that, just saying that in this example of course I can see how someone might feel that way.)

Still thinking it could be helpful to add a "Dealing with repeat submissions" sections at WP:AFC/RI, I might be WP:BOLD if no one is opposed to it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd support the addition of the section. I do feel that when someone keeps resubmitting drafts without making changes where they are needed, they are in need of an additional help rather than just the templates. (And not all reviews will be detailed) I was trying to write a response on the user talk page, but it got too many replies I lost confidence that I'd be able to make an useful comment instead of piling on. I'm just unsure what exactly should be the content of the section. Judging from your comment, is there a draft you have in mind? I am interested in seeing it, and I'm sure others will be as well. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma I didn't have a specific draft in mind beyond the example that Jimbo gave of a draft that was improved but re-declined with the same message (Draft:Howard Ellis Cox Jr.). On the flip side, drafts getting resubmitted with little to no improvement are pretty common at AfC, and I wasn't thinking of a single one in particular. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, I already know that. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 00:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The newly added section goes to a WP:TE accusation a bit too quickly. The standard different reviewers use in practice vary greatly. I used to summarily decline resubmissions without improvement and then I started looking at the previous reviewer's work. In many cases I found I had a different take on the state of the draft or could offer the author advice that had not been offered by the previous reviewer. ~Kvng (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for that – I tried to mean that it would only be considered TE if the user repeatedly submits the same content after reviewers tried to communicate, in their own words, the issues with it, and the submitter didn't reply. Feel free to rewrite it if that isn't clear, or if you feel like that is still too soon to call it TE. Clarifying "several reviewers" might be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Credit for article creation

For awards like the four award, who gets the credit for the creation of an article submitted as a draft: the submitter or the person who moves it to mainspace? KnowDeath (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The creator/primary author, the reviewer usually isn't writing it. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion § RFC: New CSD for unreviewed LLM content. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious draft publication

@AFC coordinaters please check Joseph Hernandez (businessman), some of the sources aren't independent, make only passing mention, and aren't secondary. I would normally go to AfD but this was a draft and the main editor seems to have a conflict of interest because he knows information that has not be published, I am also an editor who is somewhat new so I do not know what to do in this scenario. 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 19:17, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved from draft to mainspace by User:DTS2023 - not a regular AfC reviewer, and in fact inexperienced enough to move the draft to Joseph Hernandez, Businessman, which a regular editor then corrected. BD2412 T 19:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I was the regular editor who corrected that but I'm asking what exactly should be done about the article? 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 19:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been move back to draft, which was the right call. There is also more to the story. The same editor previously created Joseph Hernandez (entrepreneur), which was moved to Draft:Joseph Hernandez (entrepreneur) as not ready for mainspace, which I have now redirected to the "businessman" draft. BD2412 T 20:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

• What a mess. GMG^talk 19:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Eh...@Easternsahara: you risk opening yourself up to accusations of stealth deletion by moving the article. There's already a general consensus that articles shouldn't be draftified without consensus if older than three months. GMG^talk 20:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Okay so instead, can I just move it back to mainspace and put an AfD on it? user:GreenMeansGo 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 20:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  That would be the more conservative avenue. GMG^talk 20:30, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. You can certainly recommend that it be punted back to draft given the creator's repeated attempts to get it to fly. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft creation pipelines

Does anyone have a rough idea of how many drafts are created using 1) the article wizard vs 2) the submission wizard vs 3) creating a new page in draftspace using the normal MediaWiki page creation method vs 4) any other methods I forgot? After gathering this data, it could make sense to try to standardize all of our links around the most popular tool, or the tool we think is the best for this, instead of having multiple different draft creation tools. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Just noting, the submit wizard (2) is only for submitting, not creating. So really, you have folks either using the Wizard (which only pre-populates {{AfC submission}} and a reflist) or doing it manually. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

To add on to what Primefac mentioned, the two wizards are in fact complementary. The article wizard creates an unsubmitted draft, with {{AfC submission|t}}, while the submission wizard takes such a draft and submits it. It could be helpful to clarify better that the two are intended to be used together, and that they aren't duplicates or something. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Template at bottom

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

This predates AI, and likely has to do with some sort of WP:PRELOAD link being used somewhere. Apparently preloading supports appending but not prepending, so it ends up at the bottom. If you can find the link that does this, feel free to post the page containing it, as I'd like to get it included in my survey of ways to create a draft (discussed above in #Draft creation pipelines).

There's a chance that this preload method was removed awhile ago, and that AI is coincidentally bringing it back.

Anyway, feel free to post links to example drafts so we can take a closer look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

One like that which I just reviewed was Draft:Advantage Club, but having looked at its history, I now see that the author inserted the template at the bottom: Special:Diff/1302259775. I guess we rather want one where it was placed there when the draft was first created. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not AI, it's just old settings. As far as I am aware we got rid of any "click here to <put the submit template at the bottom>" links, but I also feel like we have a backup preload that still does that if the script doesn't work. I wouldn't worry about it (either finding, fixing, or replacing it); AFCH will move it to the proper location during either cleaning or reviewing. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Problem with terminology, redux

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

Issue with the reply tool

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

I guess this is where I get to smugly state that I don't use the reply tool, and so glitches like this don't affect me? Primefac (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Context: mw:DiscussionTools, not a user script such as WP:Convenient Discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Likely LLM-generated drafts: A pattern

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

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

Your description sounds a lot like "class project". Having looked at the three, I don't see any thematic connection so I don't think that's likely in this case, but usually when weird stuff is happening, that's the reason. What's your crackpot theory? -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

A school project makes more sense. I was thinking--and yes, it's crackpotty--there might be a trend of using AI for something similar to like-farming on Facebook. Someone creates a WP account, gets an LLM to create a bunch of articles or make low-stakes edits on niche topics, and then once the accout has credibility or extended-confirmed status it's sold to someone with an agenda who wants to insert junk on sensitive topics articles, or create nonsense articles without going through AfC.

If that's actually what's going on, it's a stupid scheme, because of course you don't need to create articles to become extended-protected, and it's not as if having lots of edits gives you free reign to post garbage. But Wikipedia-haters mostly don't understand how Wikipedia works, and the "edit-farmers" wouldn't care since they'd simply pocket the money and run.

Probably this isn't what's happening. But it's a topic I think about a lot because we're just about the last platform where bad-faith users haven't driven out good, and there are a lot of powerful people (and their general-public suckups) who really hate that and want to see it change. And those people tend to overlap with the people who think AI is the most fantastic thing that has ever happened. But that's just an idea, I should probably go take my medication. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, there are easier ways to game EC. But if you slightly expand the objective to creating seemingly-legitimate user accounts with a history of seemingly-successful article creation, specifically, I can think of all sorts of ways in which such accounts could be abused. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think that's all that "crackpot". I think it's even possible for there to be a misguided-but-in-good-faith version of that, namely that people are trying to "become content creators" and are trying to "get their foot in the door". I've dealt with some people who fall afoul of our policies and say they're leaving for quora or reddit for basically this reason. -- asilvering (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Two Drafts on One Person

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

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

Seems perfectly acceptable, and I would guess this is how most of us do it, especially when the two drafts have been written by two different editors. Primefac (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

One thing to consider when you get this is when they were written and if one is probably abandoned.

In this case two new accounts within 2 weeks of each other one only to write about Mr Evans and the other only two other edits before doing the same shouts UPE or at least some sort of COI, unless the subject has posted somewhere about not having a Wikipedia article and they are just fans. I find it odd to classify Draft:Eamon Evans as better as it appears to be LLM slop to me (puff, lists and LLM ref format style). So I would have just declined (bio+ai) and left in the sandbox, but in general yes your approach is fine. KylieTastic (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I usually WP:BLAR the less good draft to the more good draft. It's not good to have two of the same page because it results in duplicate work for both draft author and reviewer. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Mathglot At the end of the day AfC is 100% optional and people don’t have to use it if they don’t want to. The only thing to do now is either add maintenance tags or just fix it. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 03:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:AfD. Draftspace and AfC is optional. And even for WP:COI, where we say AfC is mandatory, AfD is the place to seek enforcement, for sending the page to draftspace by consensus, especially where the COI is debatable and your real issue is article quality.

If the COI problem is a behavioural problem, and the answer is warnings and escalation, that is a WP:ANI route. Keep sanctions on the user separate to what happens to the page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

If this editor has a COI, which Onel's message indicates, then the WP:DRAFTOBJECT rule is probably relaxed, because those folks are supposed to use draftspace per WP:COI. The language says should use draftspace, which leaves room for debate though.

If you want to keep it in mainspace because it's notable and you don't want to re-draftify, but it has other problems, then WP:TNT can be a good option. You might want to watchlist the page to make sure your TNT doesn't get reverted by the author.

AFD mainly looks at notability and not so much other problems, so if it's notable, AFD may not be a good spot for it. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded. This has been very helpful. Mathglot (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Socks in participants list

Biography project tagging

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

Kj cheetham, it already does fill it in, but only if the reviewer selects the correct status. When accepting a biography there is a checkbox "Is the article a biography?" that then shows several parameters including a drop-down list that defaults to 'unknown' but can be set to 'living' or 'dead' which in turn sets the blp param. So if you see any you'll have to poke the reviewer and ask them to fill this in. The other option would be to not have the default set to force the reviewer to pick, but they could end up not selecting it's a bio at all. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Just on that last point, I agree that forcing would probably cause more issues. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, good to know. I also agree forcing isn't the answer. I did notice that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Step_4:_Accepting_a_submission includes If accepting an article about a person, please ensure you tick the biography checkbox, and select the relevant option from the living person drop-down menu. at least too. Gentle poking seems to be the way forward; it's not a massive number of cases. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Participants list

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

• Zzz plant - Perm NPP ()
• Sophisticatedevening - Perm NPP ()
• Prince of Erebor - Perm NPP ()
• MCE89 - Perm NPP ()

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

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

For mainspace blocked users

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

@The Other Karma Referring to your unblock request? I don't think there is a need to add anything to the introduction for this.

Logically and barring any future discussions of further limitations of partial blocks, as long as you are not blocked in the project-space, draft-space, or user space, you can submit drafts for AfC reviewers to review. – robertsky (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The question was derived from my unblock request, yes. Sounds logical, but wasn't obvious to me. The Other Karma (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Bug?

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

Interesting. We've had issues with the tool not following redirects for renamed users, but making up disambiguators is a new one for me. Primefac (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

My guess is this piece of code which checks whether the username has changed. It seems to pick up this. So a fix would be to only check for username changes that happened after the draft has been submitted (@Novem Linguae:). Kovcszaln6 (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a known issue that the code should not follow renames just any redirects - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_60#AFCH_~enwiki_bug KylieTastic (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Can you take a look at this? --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Declined, or Not Accepted

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia policies and guidelines Wikipedia technical issues and templates When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

How do I get updates about this project

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

@Gryllida. Hey there. I don't think AFC has a newsletter. A few ways I can think of to stay connected include 1) watchlisting this talk page, 2) subscribing to the AFC backlog drive newsletter list (I can't find it right now, @Bunnypranav do you know where it is?), and/or 3) joining Discord and hanging out in the #articles-for-creation channel. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The mailing list is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation/Mailing list. As Novem said, that is only used for backlog drive messages, which are also not regularly done at the moment. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

We have, at various times, attempted some form of newsletter, whether it's mailed out to the list or just posted here as a project note; they were never by any stretch "regular" since the majority of what we do is just review drafts. I did have a semi-regular posting about review counts and other stats, but no one really seemed to find that useful so I stopped. As Novem says above, watchlisting this page is probably the best way to make sure you're keeping up with useful information. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Big green button is broken

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

Unable to reproduce it but should be fixed. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Likely fictional material – unsure if CSD applies

Order of decline reasons

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

Where did this happen? I tested it out at Template:AfC submission/declined/testcases § Parameter order and the parameters do have an order preference. Or are you saying that if you are using AFCH to select say nn + v it always shows up in the same order? In the latter case, I suspect it's because it's a drop-down selector rather than a "reason 1/reason 2" option. Primefac (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in the AFCH selector. And yes, that seems a plausible answer, obvious in fact (now that you mention it...). Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The answer is probably in AFCH's code somewhere. If you figure out exactly what change you'd like made to AFCH, feel free to make a GitHub ticket about it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth any amount of effort, really; no biggie. Idle curiosity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass (re-)submissions by IP

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

Thanks for the heads up. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Draft:Pahlad Ramsurrun

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

Hi there, I've just removed a couple of the paragraphs that were either direct copies from the source text or very minimally rephrased. From what I can see, if there is prose that is a copyright violation (which I believe to be the case for the removed paragraphs) without any attribution or quotation, then it should be removed and revdeled. If it is more of a grey area then the reviewing admin will soon correct me I'm sure, but you can never be too careful with copyvio.

I think your decline is valid, and copyright violation that isn't significant enough to be a speedy deletion is absolutely a reason to decline a draft (and I believe is one of the templates anyway. sksatsuma 23:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for speedy review – Draft:Anna Alimani

Locked Redirects

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

It has been two years and nine months since the last AfD, which is sufficient time for the subject to potentially become notable. If the new draft includes substantial new content and is supported by reliable, independent sources published in the meantime, it should be evaluated on its own merits rather than rejected solely due to the previous AfD outcome. – DreamRimmer ■ 04:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

On the note of "substantial new content", I (and I am sure many of my fellow admins here) are more than happy to take a look and/or temporarily copy old versions of a page for reviewing purposes. On the specifics of Verdis, I'm a little pushed for time but a quick glance shows that the page is pretty darn similar to the deleted versions, so I do not necessarily disagree with the rejection.

In general, as with most of these sorts of things, it depends on the situation. For a page like Verdis, which has been deleted at least three times and appears to have a lot of socking involved in its creation, should be heavily scrutinised. However, I do not think that "this page has been deleted at AFD" should be an automatic Reject, along the same lines of thinking as DreamRimmer; there are plenty of reasons why a subject can go from non-notable to notable, especially after multiple years have passed. If the subject is notable, past deletions shouldn't necessarily matter (unless the AFD wasn't strictly about notability). Primefac (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree, an old AfD should never be an automatic reason to delete. AfD discussions all not all well attended. Things can change. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Decline criterion for résumés

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

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

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

As I said elsewhere, I obviously support adding this as a decline and honestly think it looks ready to go CoconutOctopus talk 19:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This looks good - but would you need to pair it with a not (yet) notable decline as well? The issue with most of these is that the person is likely not notable, even with a rewrite. Lijil (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am thinking of it being similar in spirit to the "advert" or "npov" declines which are often paired with a notability-related decline if that aspect is relevant. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely support this!

Unsure whether it would be worth including a comment on conflict of interest as well? Most of the time these two issues go hand in hand but I appreciate sometimes an article might just be written in this style without a COI. sksatsuma 20:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Editors with a conflict of interest are encouraged to go through AfC, so I don't think we should put that into focus in the "decline" reason, as it might give them the impression that we're punishing them for being open about their COI. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue is WP:PROF where, depending on which of the 8 criteria they meet, WP:primary non-independent sources are fine to use such as their CV or the academic institution for which they work and they often read like resumes so that needs to taken into consideration somehow. S0091 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah yeah of course, my thinking was for all of the undeclared COIs, but I think it would muddy the water including this in the template, and just conflates the two issues where a talk page message is usually enough for an undisclosed COI. sksatsuma 21:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Decline and Reject reasons should cite the strongest reason. For a resume, use “WP:NOTRESUME”. It is Capital-P Wikipedia Policy. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't link to WP:NOTRESUME, as that policy is about user pages, not articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

For rejections, this would fit well under the WP:NOT rejection reason. For declines though, there is no WP:NOT, so I see why this might need its own reason. Anyway, I see a consensus here, so I've created a ticket to add it to AFCH. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOT is in fact a decline reason, not a rejection one. However, it's broad and given we see so many CV-like drafts I think having a specific reason with various helpful links is more useful than a decline that simply points to a long list of various other things it may have failed at. There's always the option of writing a unique decline each time, but let's be honest, that won't happen. CoconutOctopus talk 11:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. "not" is a decline reason (generically linking to WP:NOT rather than something more specific than WP:NOTRESUME). For rejections, I was thinking "e" (which links to WP:5P), which I guess I got confused with WP:NOT. Anyway, never mind. :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:56, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to this, having gone back and looked at the NOT decline reason, it's pretty lacking - literally just a link saying "go read WP:NOT". Is there any way to see how often each decline reason is used? CoconutOctopus talk 11:59, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I was going to file an edit request at Template talk:AfC submission to add it to /comments, but I figured I could maybe ask you directly instead, as maybe there's a reason you wanted to add it to AFCH before doing that. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It needs to be modified in both places (templates, and AFCH). Feel free to do the template edit request, which will get half the work done :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Done, Special:PermanentLink/1305858839#Edit request 14 August 2025! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

and done. I hope! CoconutOctopus talk 14:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. I went ahead and created and . Will leave them open for comment for a day before merging and deploying. Ping me in a day if I forget. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Amazing! Small detail in the readme change, Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ-like could be replaced by the more general Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ, as not all categories follow the stricter format. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ-like could be replaced by the more general Category:AfC submissions declined as XYZ. Done. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done. AFCH patch merged and deployed. If it works great, barnstars can be delivered to User talk:Novem Linguae. If it is terribly broken, any random technical user that isn't me can be contacted. (Just kidding :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Tony Wagner

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

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

Some reviewers might consider it a bit bity to reject straight out there, but it seems like a straight copy-paste from the LLM with no editorial input.

I've tagged for speedy deletion under CSD 15 as the last paragraph has LLM language that was meant for the user. sksatsuma 09:46, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Sksatsuma. I considered it a little bitey to tag it for G15 straight out, so I asked for another set of eyes. I thought that the last sentence was talking to the user, but was not sure, so am glad to see agreement. I didn't think it was too bitey to reject an autobiography with no references, whether or not the product of an LLM. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Otto Bihler Maschinenfabrik

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

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

Draft moved to mainspace after being declined at AfC

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

I have moved it back to the draftspace. – DreamRimmer ■ 03:28, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this new mainspace duplicate? I'm working on improving the draft, as the topic is very much notable. But, per usual, the new editor is completely ignoring any attempt at engagement. Silverseren^C 04:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren I have done so with @DreamRimmer's G6 rationale. I have also temporarily salted the page creation at XC level for a month, so feel free to move the draft over when done. – robertsky (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I've gone ahead and resubmitted it for AfC. I think it's in a good state now. Could use some info from the establishment of the institutes in 2012 (and 2019), but that can be stolen from the dedicated articles later if need be. Silverseren^C 05:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

User:DreamRimmer - If you are draftifying articles that are not ready for article space, and have 44,000 edits, request the Page Mover privilege so as not to leave those useless redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I generally do not draftify articles. This was only the second draftification in the last few months. I will make sure to tag the redirects with R2 next time, and if there are many draftifications, I will surely request the page mover rights. – DreamRimmer ■ 05:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Aydoh8 and interested responders: please see § How to respond to user moving unsubmitted or declined draft to mainspace? up the page a little bit. Not exactly the same circumstances, but fairly similar. Mathglot (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Help desk formatting

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

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

Placeholders in drafts

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

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

Have you read Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing? It includes this as a tell. qcne (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Draft:Battle of Rusçuk

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

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

Ip:74.106.206.136 problematic submissions

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

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

Administration

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

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