Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Things declined as copyvios

Hey all, I have a request for a bit of assistance. Over the last week I've winnowed down Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations down to about 35 pages, but thanks to this bug for most of them an "original URL" was not provided. If you feel so motivated, please feel free to go through the last ones and do the following:

  1. Check to see if the offending text has been removed (this is where I got stuck, because on some of them the latest edit is a cv decline but the copyvio tool shows for example <10% matches). If it's still there, remove it!
  2. Request a revdel, either with a {{revdel}} call or using User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel
  3. Convert the cv decline reason to cv-cleaned once the revdel is complete

Any and all help with this would be very much appreciated. I was debating pinging the declining reviewers, but a) that's a lot of people, and b) some of them might not know or remember where the content came from anyway. If folks think this would be useful, though, I'll do it. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Primefac I'm picking some of these up. I am only logging weirdnesses below. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Progress within the category

It makes sense to avoid duplication of work to tell us all what you have done and where you are working, and the point you have reached when yo stop. I am assumking all who are participting are working through Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

List of anomalies

Please feel free to strike though any that you view as completed. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Shielding us from those that have been processed
  • For Draft:Flywheel Exercise there were a couple discussions at the AfC Helpdesk on January 7th and 9th here. In short, the source material is not known but more than one experienced reviewer declined/rejected it due to copyright/plagiarism concerns. I am not sure how that should be handled. S0091 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this one is difficult. It has been rejected, though is still being worked on. I was tempted to CSD as a copyviop with unspecied source. Chose not to. THis is not fallout form the bug, though. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If we cannot find the source, I do not use revdel. It's enough to rewrite the part that's likely from another source. . DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)`
Yes, it needs rewriting. But I think it's ok wiuith respect to copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@FiddleFaddle if I follow what you did, you updated the AfC CV decline parameter with "cleaned" here. I am assuming this also removes it from Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations, correct? (Noting I was not even aware the category existed so all of this is good to know. Now it is matter of remembering it). S0091 (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@S0091 Exactly. 👍 And I had not been aware until the short treatise above these working sections. I took some time to reach the conclusion for each draft I've examined. It takes about 10 minutes per questionable draft to work out what to do and how to make the least errors in doing it. Have a go! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@S0091 this one was one of the easier ones. There was no need to cv-revdel, for example. Others are easy because you can just "handle" them without troubling the Anomalies section here. I created the section to avoid folk duplicating effort and to see if iwiser heads than mine can provide good solutions FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Copy vio report Hope that's clear :) Bogger (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@Bogger perfect, thanks cor finding this. I'll sort the draft out FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Timtrent, that's something I wasn't aware of! Rusalkii, for another time: I try always to include the source url of a copyvio in my edit summary when reverting or removing it, and also in my log summary when revdeleting. Of course I sometimes forget, but this wasn't one of those times. The source was this. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


  • Draft:Timeline of mechanical engineering innovation Rejected raft whcih woudl normally wither on the G13 vine, but the creating editor has delayed that by editing post rejection. Thus I have looked at it with fresh eyes. I cannto reach a copncusion about what it is. It appears to be a half decent magazine artticle. It might also be the type of thing one might expect im an encyclopaedia, so why not ours?
Settimg that aside, the source(s) of the copyvio appear to be https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philosophy-and-religion/other-religious-beliefs-biographies/girolamo-cardano But shoudl we clean it or let it go away? Currently it's due to go on 17/18 April. @Primefac: This one's for you, sorry. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

General comments, not article/draft specific

  • My general view, when it reads like a copyvio but we can't identify a source, is to rewrite the part that looks like a copyvio as a precaution, but to revdel unless the source can be identified. The exception is instances which could only be copyvio, such as reference numbers not corresponding to anything in the submitted article. Then I decline. On the other hand, material worded as "we" does not show either copyvio or coi authorship--its is often an attempt at a more impersonal rhetoric or the old fashioned style of book reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

AFCH Tool Wish List

I had, only a few months ago, thought that we, the reviewers, should just recognize that the AFCH tool is very useful but is not about to be improved, only tweaked. Now I see that a few very useful improvements have been made to it. So I would like, again, to identify two wish list items, requested improvements to the tool:

Tracked in github.com
Issue #127
  • 1. When the reviewer adds a Comment to a draft, either copy the comment to the talk page of the submitter, or provide a checkbox to allow the reviewer to indicate whether to copy the comment to the talk page of the submitter. Any comments made by the reviewer in declining or rejecting a draft are copied to the submitter's talk page. But an AFC comment is only listed on the draft, with a note on the reviewer's talk page. Sometimes the reviewer may want to be sure that the message stays on the page of the submitter, such as if the reviewer asks if there is a conflict of interest, or if the reviewer advises the submitter to seek advice from a WikiProject. Since the reviewer comments are copied to the submitter talk page on a decline, it shouldn't be difficult to copy them also when they are just comments. Sometimes the reviewer may want to accept the article, but first needs some edit, such as a reference for the main claim of notability.
Tracked in github.com
Issue #128
  • 2. Can the AFC comments be copied to the article talk page when a draft is accepted? Some of them may identify post-acceptance maintenance that should be done after the draft is an article.

I would like to thank the maintainers for some recent improvements, and request more improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be great if draft reviews were automatically posted to the page creator's talk page. Posting reviews is commonly done by most AFC reviewers but it's not universally done. Since I'm on the G13 side of drafts, I'm concerned that once the draft is deleted, some new editors have no record of why their drafts were declined since they can't view the deleted page which can sometimes be the only place the review is posted. I frequently see a pattern of new editors arriving on Wikipedia, creating a page, submitting it and then leaving Wikipedia (sometimes in the same day!). Their draft goes stale and is deleted. Should they ever decide to return to try again, there should be some notice on their talk page about why their drafts were not accepted. If a script posted this automatically for the AFC reviewer, that would be ideal! Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Liz - You say that posting reviews is commonly but not universally done by AFC reviewers. I will try to clarify. A reviewer can take any of three-and-one-half actions on a draft, where the half action is to read it and do nothing. The reviewer can accept the draft, which leaves an acceptance note on the submitter's talk page, but that is not what we are talking about. The reviewer can also either decline the draft or comment on the draft. If the reviewer comments on the draft, it remains in review for another reviewer. If the reviewer declines the draft, standard verbiage, and any reviewer-added comments, normally are posted to the submitter's talk page, as well as on the draft. However, if the reviewer comments on the draft, and neither accepts nor declines it, their comments are only put on the draft. A note is put on the submitter's talk page, but not the review itself. Maybe this will clarify for Liz when the review is and is not posted. What I am requesting is that review comments that neither accept nor decline the draft be copied onto the submitter's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Liz, that is the default setting for AFCH. If you (Liz or others) are seeing reviewers not leaving reviews, please let me know so I can nicely ask them to change their habits. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Primefac - As I have explained, the difference is between reviews that decline the draft and reviews that neither accept nor decline the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
@Liz At present reviews go to the submitter's talk page. Since the submitter is not necessarily the creator I agree with this suggestion FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
If someone creates a draft for something that is not notable yet but will likely be in the future, and a less experienced editor comes along and prematurely hits the submit button, we shouldn't clutter the talk page of the original creator with a giant decline banner. DanCherek (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I see what you mean and agree with both of your points FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, not being an AFC reviewer, this is all new information to me and I haven't quite wrapped my mind around Robert's very thorough explanation of the steps a reviewer goes through. It's much more complicated than I realized. And I wasn't talking about a big decline banner, I just often see very helpful messages accompanying a draft decline with details about what needs to be fixed. I see more helpful messages than the absence of messages so I think, in general, reviewers are doing a good job communicating with the page creator. I'm kind of reluctant to "report" anyone because I'm seeing user talk pages months after the drafts have been reviewed and the reviewer might have changed their habits in the meantime. But I'll pay more attention to this. I tend to notice the helpful reviewers more than the less helpful ones. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Liz - You notice the helpful reviewers more than the unhelpful ones because they write more for an admin to see, because most of what reviewers write is helpful, and what is unhelpful is not writing much. So that is to be expected. (You might notice if a reviewer was uncivil, but incivility is a less common problem in reviewers than not saying anything.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
By the way, some of what you see on article talk pages and user talk pages that is signed by reviewers is written by the reviewers, and some of it is canned text from templates that the reviewers select. You may not know the difference unless you either are a reviewer or research the comments left by the templates. That makes it harder to tell how much work the reviewers have really done. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Tracked in github.com
Issue #222
In addition to the points raised already, I would like to suggest somehow separating comments made when declining from ones made in their own right (ie. by simply commenting on a draft). I always leave comments to elaborate on my reasons, in addition to the canned ones that appear automatically. I often also post further comments on issues or concerns I have, which are not reasons for declining, and I think it would be helpful, both for the submitter and to other reviewers, if the comment format clearly distinguished (say, by the colour of the exclamation mark symbol) between the two. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
My only other general comment, coming from someone who sees a lot of drafts, is I wish there was a bigger color contrast between the pink tag of a declined draft and the pink tag of a rejected draft. It was a long time before I understood the difference between the two results in the AFC world but the two tags look extremely similar. I don't think that new editors understand that a draft rejection is not just another decline and I bet they think that they can just resubmit again. If they were different colors, that fact might be more obvious. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
On the one hand, I agree with User:Liz that a color contrast would be a good idea. On the other hand, I think that some of the editors who resubmit rejected drafts don't care, because they are being tendentious. If they were trying to be collaborative, they might have engaged in discussion before the rejection. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
2 GitHub tickets already open. 1 GitHub ticket created. Don't forget to create issues on GitHub. The GitHub issues tab serves as a todo list for volunteer programmers when they get bursts of motivation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Novem Linguae for raising the ticket; I wouldn't have known how, even if I had been aware of Github. And thanks for putting it so much more succinctly than my usual waffle. :) Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
My pleasure. I'm happy to help :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on that second feature now, I'll probably submit a pull request in a few hours. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 17:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. Might take a while to be merged, as I don't have write access to the repo. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 19:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Can any Articles be put to AFC-Draft-Space? (without naming a reason)

Can any article, be put by anyone in AFC-Draft-Space, even if only extended confirmed users edited the Article? And if so, does they need to give any reason why they put it in AFC-Draft-Space? Can such a move be rejected by non-participants, or is it necessary to first get a participant to move a AFC-Draft to Article? 178.190.215.89 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is no good reason, then an article should not be moved to the draft space. If an article is EC-protected, then chances are pretty good there will not be a good reason for moving it to the draft space.
If I am misinterpreting what you're trying to ask, please feel free to elaborate. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the unregistered editor thinks that there has been an abuse of draftifying, or maybe the unregistered editor (maybe on behalf of their account) wants to know whether they can arbitrarily draftify an article. I think that there is a developing consensus that articles that have been in article space for more than 30 days or 90 days should not be draftified except by AFD. Maybe the unregistered editor is trying to confuse us, which would be trolling, or maybe they are confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
If you have questions about what kind of articles are moved from main space to Draft space, how old the articles are or who is most active Draftifying, the helpful bot SDZeroBot has a weekly list that it regularly updates at User:SDZeroBot/Draftify Watch you might check out. There is also a daily list, User:JJMC89 bot/report/Draftifications/daily but the SDZeroBot list has a brief excerpt of content which can be useful and also has a secondary list of pages that were moved to Draft space, and then moved back to main space, either by the page creator or by another editor. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Negative/controversial BLP

Came across this Draft:Stecia Mayanja, and wasn't sure how to handle it. Some of the content is quite inappropriate IMO, and probably should be removed, but should I also request revdel per WP:CRD #2 (etc.)? Or shall I just decline and ask the creator to clean it up? Or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely? Any views appreciated. Ta, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

PS: I should add that I considered declining this as an attack page and requesting speedy, but held fire as the content is not entirely negative, and some of the claims are backed up by what seem like reasonably okay sources (albeit that I'm in no position to judge the RS'ness of Ugandan media, so could be wrong). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing a useful AFC friend in African media matters is @Celestina007 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
DoubleGrazing & Timtrent let me handle this one. Thanks for the ping Timtrent. I’d handle this one now. Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Alright I have outrightly rejected the draft. (a) it is on a non notable individual. (b) it is a bother-line attack article, whilst in my opinion it hasn’t reached the attack page threshold it is definitely worth keeping an eye on. I have added the article and the creator to my watchlist. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Now I know who to hassle with similar matters in the future. :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ship to be launched

Hi, do we have a policy about whether an article on a ship can be accepted before the ship is in service? I think Draft:Disney Wish is ready, and it is certainly notable, not least because this ship is part of a fleet and we have articles on all the other ships in the fleet, so I think there's no question that we want to accept it. The question is only whether we have to wait until the maiden voyage in July? (I know we have a policy to hold back articles on cinema films until the release date.) --Doric Loon (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Doric Loon I have not read the draft, but let's use logic. If it is a notable vessel (for any number of reasons it may be) then it deserves an article. If it is notable then it will have references that can be found that, broadly, pass WP:42. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Timtrent, yes indeed, and as far as I am concerned, the sourcing at present establishes notability. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Which brings me to the second issue - if I understand correctly that I can accept it, would somebody please delete the redirect so I can move it? (Is there any way that I can get the rights to do that myself?) --Doric Loon (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Doric Loon if you flag the redirect with {{Db-afc-move}} this will be sorted out for you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@User:Timtrent, Thanks! --Doric Loon (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Doric Loon - The right to which you refer is the Page Mover privilege. Some reviewers have that privilege; more reviewers do not have it. You can either request that privilege, or tag the redirect with {{db-afc-move}} to request that the redirect be deleted and that you be able to accept the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I have Page Mover privilege. May I move the draft into the mainspace? Cardei012597 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to decline messaging

Just dropping a link to a proposed rewording to the notability decline message raised by AssumeGoodWraith on VPP Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, surprised this wasn't discussed here first... Primefac (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPR § Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFC

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPR § Proposing a change to the notability declining message in AFC. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing visual display of Template:AfC comment

Tracked in github.com
Issue #222

It was proposed above that a comment left as a decline be displayed differently than a generic comment. I wanted to start this thread to see a) if that's something that really is desired, and b) discuss what it will potentially look like. I'm not too worried about implementation, as that's something that can be done later, just want to discuss what (if any) difference we want to display. My primary thought is that it should say "Decline comment" instead of just "Comment", but we could also add a different symbol such as , maybe to indicate a higher priority? Primefac (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac that sounds like a good idea, if you could add an #if condition to Template:AfC comment I'll make a pull request which adds it to the script. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 13:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
An #if to do... what? That's the entire point of this thread, is to figure out what we're switching between. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
I think what you said sounds good -- where it says "Decline comment" and with a different symbol. IMO the one you suggested looks a bit too harsh -- maybe Information icon is better? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 14:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: I originally proposed a difference in icon style or colour, but I now realise that would mostly benefit other reviewers, who are used to seeing and interpreting such icons. Whereas the submitter might also benefit from understanding the difference, and would probably find the plain language 'comment' vs. 'decline comment' distinction clearer. Therefore, to cater to both audiences, my !vote goes for both different icon and different text. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Deafhistoryspring2022/sandbox, User:Theblondeduo/sandbox

This looks like a bit of a tangle - a school project, clearly not encyclopedic in tone ("The Positive and Negative Influencers and Cultural Players of the Deaf During Nazi Controlled Germany", etc), but it looks like there's something there worth saving. I wanted to suggest merging to something like Deaf people in Nazi Germany, but instead we have Deaf Organizations during the Holocaust and Sterilization of deaf people in Nazi Germany, both of which are something of a mess. I'd appreciate if someone else could take a look at the draft and the two existing articles and advise the submitter. Rusalkii (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Like you, I cannot quite determine the correct home. I'll offer a comment on the draft FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rusalkii I have left a comment there that I hope also summarises what you would wish to have said to them. Please add to or vary it where you feel appropriate. That invitation is to all of us, not just to you FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh. I just noticed there are two drafts. What a potential for mess. Just left the identical comment on the other draft, too. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I've also left a message at Wikiproject: Germany § Two Deaf / Nazi Germany articles and two drafts. I think that is, probably, the best home for this. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Anonymous A's allegation of massive paper frauds

I feel unable to review this draft. Part of me says "Accept it and let the community decide." The other part says "But I cannot handle the references without using machine translation"

Setting those two views aside, what is the fraud is the draft article?

I'm not paranoid. Everybody says so, but I'm not!

More seriously, this needs someone like DGG whose expertise in academe exceeds mine by light years, and conceivably a Japanese Wikiproject member. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - First, if you are asking what the fraud is, then the alleged fraud is the alteration of research results, generally in order to advance the careers of the authors of the papers. On the other hand, if Anonymous A has invented the allegations, then that is a fraudulent claim of fraud. Second, what is wrong with machine translation for the checking of references? Third, do you think that there is a greater than 50% chance that the article will survive an AFD? Fourth, leaving it for other reviewers with different knowledge sets is often a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon THere's nothing wrong with machine translation at all. But I found I was out of my depth 😭😇😳 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Timtrent - Maybe you were out of your depth not due to machine translation but due to the technical content of the papers. Is that possible? It doesn't change much, but the problem may not really be machine translation or the Japanese language, but biomedical scientific content (or some other scientific content). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I am sure you are right. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
I've been aware of this. I have now read the small amount of material in the article that is in English.[1] The content in the articles is basically correct, as shown by the multiple additional sources in English for this. which I shall add to the article pending some necessary rewriting. For example, Science [2] and retraction watch. https://retractionwatch.com/category/shigeaki-kato/ . There are also quite a few references in google scholar to the retracted papers. the scientist most involved in this is Shigeaki Kato. We don't have an article on him, (we have one on a singer of the same name) but we should; it will need careful writing and I would need some time to do it , and cooperation with a Japanese speaking WP who knows some biochemistry. There is no libel issue, considering the extensive previous publication.
My own biochemistry labwork was a long time ago, but the fraud involves one of the basic techniques, Gel electrophoresis; the extensive use of it dates from the 60s. I used the technique extensively in my own graduate work, and I taught it to students. The excellent WP article is medium-technical, but the basic idea can be seen by looking at the first figure of sample results. .
The evidence from Anonymous A is available in excerpts of the suspicious graphics at [3].It can be verified easily by looking at the actual papers which he cites.
But gel electrophoresis and kindred methods have been involved in multiple other major frauds. The typical technique is simple: one cuts out the image on one gel with a scissors and pastes or copies it somewhere else. The ease of this probably has something to do with the extensive frauds from many countries. The method of detection is also simple: one looks at the exact pattern of the bands on the gel under a microscope: the exact same stained image should not be found in two different places. The last few figures of the anonymous selection show this clearly. That's probably why so many such frauds have been detected--it's quite simple and direct and requires no special technology. Other ways of cheating in the lab are considerably more difficult to detect, and are generally found by a failure to reproduce someone's results. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chahat Pandey

I would appreciate if another reviewer will look at Draft:Chahat Pandey and consider whether to request admin action to unlock a fully protected redirect. In 2019, an article on this actress was deleted with a comment by the closer that the subject might be too soon, and the article was redirected to the film in which she had starred, and the redirect then had to be locked due to fans trying to recreate the article. Now there is a draft for review, and it appears to me that she now had at least two lead roles. However, I think that I have a negative attitude toward the author because the author projects a negative attitude toward Wikipedia and is hostile. So can someone who is neutral take a look? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Images in Drafts

This isn't primarily a question but a general comment. Sometimes a draft has an image of the subject of the draft. I advise in those cases that the reviewer look at the provenance of the image. There are a few possible different problems. An image in a draft should be in Commons. The two problems that I know of are either that the image belongs to the author of the draft, or that the image doesn't belong to the author of the draft. I will explain. The first problem is that the image is identified in Commons as Own Work of the author of the draft. That raises a question as to conflict of interest. The image can properly be in Commons; the author has licensed it for reuse. But the author can be questioned as to how they came to photograph the subject of the draft. That's a question to ask about the draft (not about the image as such). The second problem is that the image was uploaded from a web site that either is copyrighted or doesn't say that it isn't copyrighted. If it doesn't say that it isn't copyrighted, Commons assumes that it is copyrighted. In that case, the reviewer, as a Commons editor, can tag the image for deletion from Commons as copyvio. Actually, a third possible problem is that the image may be a fair-use non-free-content file in the English Wikipedia rather than in Commons. These are sometimes permitted in articles, but only in articles and not in drafts. The non-free-content image can simply be removed from the draft.

Does anyone have any other thoughts about images in drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I am medium active on Commons where I follow almost 100% of the picture I encounter in drafts. I ignore any Wikipedia criteria, concentrating only on Commons criteria. I will nominate for the relevant form of deletion if:
  • a proven copyvio
  • where there are no camera details in the EXIF data, using "Pictures without camera details tend to be suspect. We require a very much better declaration of source and/or permissions. See c:COM:VRT. Potential copyright violation. c:COM:PCP applies." as a deletion rationale
  • where the uploader is the subject of the picture using "No evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather that the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright)."
  • where the metadata included FBMD (Facebook) using "FBMD in metadata. Unlikely to be own work. Copyvio? Correct permission is required See c:COM:VRT"
I have been granted the status on Commons as a trusted editor to be able to perform batch deletion requests. Where I find one problem file I follow those to examine 100% of the uploader's files, using the same process.
I'm not sure I've answered your question, Robert. I know I am doing more than we are asked as reviewers, but I feel a duty to leave nothing questionable behind FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Timtrent - Where are the "relevant form(s) of deletion" on Commons defined? There is a link to the left of the Commons screen to nominate an image for deletion. I didn't see a list of reasons. Also, I don't know whether the case that prompted this post on my part is any of your four cases, because I don't know if it would be called a proven copyvio. It was an image that was uploaded from a movie database. I didn't see a copyright notice (but I didn't look for one), but I just assumed that it is a copyvio. But how do I specify the category of deletion request? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I have a shedload, which I think arrived with my right to use the batch script. They are in the left hand menu. Non autopatrolled editors get, I think, Nominate for Deletion, and Nominate for Speedy Deletion. Those two will do the trick.
If you feel your deletion need is going to be greater than casual (ie using the batch task) you can apply for autopatrolled status giving reasons. It is not granted by default, as you can imagine. I had to ask in the same way FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon The answer to your specific case depends on the licensing at the source where it was found, and whether that was before or after its commons upload, I can offer an opinion if you point me at it FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Timtrent - First, I don't think that I will be asking for any special user rights on Commons. Second, you ask about the licensing at the source where it was found. I didn't find any licensing at the source. I didn't make much effort to page and scroll and search through the machine-translated web site to find any licensing. I just assumed that if it looked like it was probably copyrighted, it was probably copyrighted. The specific case was: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2022/03/20#File:Mohamed_Rabie.jpg . I apologize if I caused confusion by suggesting that there some sort of licensing; there wasn't, at least not to my knowledge, and I wasn't going up and down to find it. I apologize if this is a stupid question. Third, is what I did reasonable, and should I have done something different? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I just scrolled to the foot of the declared source page, It states حقوق الطبع محفوظة © 2022, شركة دملج (ش.م.م) ® thus is copyright even without translation. Translated it says Copyright © 2022, Damlej Company (LLC) ®. Your deletion request is fine since you don't seem to have access to speedy deletion mechan9sms in the Commons toolbox.
I'm about to offer it for speedy deletion there because it is a true copyvio. I'm using c:COM:CSD#F1. I'll also !vote at your deletion discussion.
Thank you, User:Timtrent, yes, the copyright symbol is clear enough. And the 2022 is, after all, in Arabic numerals, and it doesn't matter whether they say 2022 or 1443 (or even 5782). If I see an image on a foreign web site in the future, I probably still won't look for the copyright, but will again state that it is probably copyrighted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon I've been caught out before, not by a copyright notice, but by the little silhouette man that is one of the creative commons logo things.
Your mechanism works. You may receive advice from Commons admins on becoming even better at it, which is where I caught the bug from! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 18:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Good call of yours. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon for completeness, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mohamed Rabie.jpg where you will see that your concern was considered to be justified by the deleting admin. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon fyi, the c:Help:QuickDelete gadgets give to you some links in the sidebar to automatically add CSD requests if you need to. The default ones are usually enough for the clear cut copyvio issues, and also offer you the option to give the uploader some time to sort out permission issues for the one you think the uploader can rectify on their end easily. – robertsky (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rescuing declined drafts

If I go through a declined draft and bring it up to snuff is it considered good practice to resubmit it, or should I move it to mainspace myself? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If you are planning to bring declined drafts up to acceptance more often than rarely, my thought would be that you should become a reviewer, with the intention primarily of submitting and approving improved drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason to review my own submitted drafts, rather than just moving to mainspace? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish Only that using the AFCH script tidies up behind you. Otherwise any editor in good standing may move any draft to mainspace. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I've installed the helper script. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
If you're sure it'd survive an AFD discussion and there are no other major problems such as copyright, can just move it to mainspace, in my opinion. If you want someone else to decide notability, then resubmitting is the way to go. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
For a lot of the drafts I've looked at, I can't be sure that they'd survive AfD, but I'm making sure there's a few in-depth, independent sources for each that I've moved. I just moved Peninah Kabenge to mainspace, rather than having someone take time away from the thousands of other drafts to review it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Timtrent and some others use the standard of "50% chance of surviving an AFD discussion", I believe. Perhaps that would be a good threshold to use. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae I prefer to state it as a "Better than 50% chance", but it is the metric from way back when AFC started.
The community will always be better in consensus terms of judging a draft that any single reviewer. I a, happy if I accept "too many drafts", though it does disappoint me to see an acceptance of mine at AfD. Even when it is there I almost never comment on a deletion discussion except as a neutral voice FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red

Women in Red Apr 2022, Vol 8, Issue 4, Nos 214, 217, 226, 227, 228


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Helper script

Thank you everyone working on the script for the new changes, especially the short description field! I've been updating that manually and it's saving me an extra step almost every time. Rusalkii (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A general observation, more than anything: there are a lot of drafts in the queue to do with Serbia, many of them created by IP editor(s) geolocating to Ontario — anyone happen to know the story behind this? I've just declined three that were translated from srwiki but failed on referencing and/or notability grounds; it seems the requirements there are lower than here on enwiki. Seems a pity for someone to be putting in all this effort, with not a great success rate. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't say, maybe a university project, family connections, or a spam farm, the list is rather extensive. You could always try asking them why they're focusing on this topic area, since it seems like they've got an issue recognising when something is notable or not. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
This has been going on for at least a year, maybe longer - different IP's in the same range but the same types of ref/cite format errors makes me think just one person. They appear unable or unwilling to improve or interact not helped by IP swapping lots, so just keep translating and submitting. However if I remember correctly someone determined that a lot of them probably were notable historic figures just badly sourced, so without someone willing to find more Serbian sources a decline is probably the death of them (So I think someone was accepting some to see how they got treated in main-space, but I don't remember even seeing an update). KylieTastic (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I feel like there are two separate cases here. There is the IP editor from Canada who is creating articles about Serbian Orthodox Church history in Canada (adding the churches and prominent Serbian Canadian figures), and then there the the IP editor who is creating articles about prominent historical Serbs. For the Canadian user, I tried to provide support as to what I thought the drafts would need to be accepted (less information about Serbian-Canadian history, more information about the Church itself, less editorializing) but any edits were piecemeal (if at all). I think one of the issues that happens with the other user is that they are translating articles from srwiki (which has the option of latin script or cyrillic) from cyrillic, which malforms the reference templates. There might be a case for GNG notability, but I think many of these are passing mentions in historical "Who's Who" books on Google Books. When it comes to notability, I fall back on WP:NPOL for some of the political figures and membership in the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences or Matica srpska for WP:NPROF or other notability.
I agree with KylieTastic that this has been going on for a long time. Given the continued animosity that different ethnic groups have for one another in the former Yugoslavia, I have kept my eye on these drafts to look them over for NPOV and notability issues. My concern (and apologies to everyone for not assuming good faith) is that it's a concerted effort to boost the amount of content for one group relative to another (which isn't in and of itself wrong, see WP:WiR and our efforts to combat systemic bias). Bkissin (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
The editor who does translations about Serbian figures is good, their drafts are hit-or-miss, but otherwise very productive. However, I'm very concerned about the Canadian IP that Bkissin mentioned; there is a good chance this may be the artist known as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JohnGotten, as the sock of theirs that I encountered, Aquinasthomes1, almost exclusively created articles about Serbian Orthodox people and buildings in North America. Curbon7 (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Ishan Pathan

Ishan Pathan is YouTube social media model and actor 2402:8100:39E3:CE66:F3B4:E351:E7EC:B4DF (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

You can start this article, if they are supported by reliable sources and must have passes the notability criteria. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Article wizard for help creating this as a draft. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

South Sudan copy vios

FYI: I've just found three new editors posting about South Sudan all copywrite violations - maybe another edit event with poor basics coverage. Just one to watch for. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Showing warning for use of deprecated/unreliable sources in AfC submit script

I'm wondering if AfC folks would consider it useful if the AfC submit script (WP:AFCSW) showed a notice/warning when a draft citing deprecated/blacklisted/unreliable sources is being submitted. I think this would encourage authors to revisit their citations before submitting.

From implementation point of view, @Headbomb's User:Headbomb/unreliable.js contains some massive regexes for different categories of unreliability. Any suggestions regarding which of those regexes to handle in AFCSW? – SD0001 (talk) 12:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I certainly think deprecated and blacklisted should be flagged to be removed and replaced as unacceptable. For unreliable sources the wording would have to be simple and clear due to the nuance involved. KylieTastic (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Visibility of AfC comments?

You know how those editing on mobile devices don't get alerted to some mentions and talk page notifications etc. (WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU) — is there similarly some sort of technical reason affecting the visibility of the comments we leave as part of the AfC process (by which I mean mainly the extra comments, rather than the canned message, but that too)? Just wondering as some drafts get repeatedly declined for the same reason, and the accompanying messages get increasingly urgent and agitated; it's as if the author/submitter isn't reading them at all, and I just wondered if it's because they can't actually read them? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  • DoubleGrazing well you can see them on a mobile browser (i.e en.m.wikipedia.org), and I've just tested and you can see in the iOS App. I think some people just think they have a right to publish what they want just like they can on social media (mostly), they just can't understand the concept of "Encyclopedic content". KylieTastic (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, you may be right. I was trying to AGF, although I keep being proven wrong... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    • User:DoubleGrazing - What do you mean bythe accompanying messages get increasingly urgent and agitated? Do you mean that the submitter is becoming increasingly demanding, or that the reviewer is replying with increasing emphasis that the submission is not acceptable? If you mean the latter, and I do often see where the comments accompanying the decline become stronger, then I am not sure it is fair to the reviewers to say that they are becoming "agitated", at least not in the cases that I see. I think that your question has been answered, which is that the submitter does see the decline messages. I think that the explanation is that some submitters are stupid. That's an unkind assessment, but the stupid submitters are being unkind to both themselves and the reviewers. I think that some reviewers should use Reject sooner than they do, but some stupid persistent editors continue to submit after rejection. Are you referring to the submitter messages getting more urgent, or the decline messages getting more urgent? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
      @Robert McClenon: I mean the latter, the reviewers gradually moving from gently suggesting something, to pleading in desperation. Which I fully empathise with, I should add; it can be incredibly frustrating when the authors don't pay any attention to, and/or don't understand, the advice given, and just keep failing for the same reason over and over. (I also think some are actually trying to game the system, but they are fortunately a small minority. Hanlon's razor usually applies.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Replacing a redirect

I've accepted a draft for Barbara Ferrer (American health official) however there was already a re-direct page for her name in mainspace. I've deleted the content of the re-direct page but now I'm stumped as to how to move the new article into that page. I think an admin needs to do this? TIA! MurielMary (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Submission template

What is the correct form/parameter of the submission template to have the "click here to submit" button? Draft:World Divyang T10 was draftified at AFD but the neccesary template has not yet been added.

We don't seem to have any guidance here (that I could find) about the templates and parameters that we use. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

{{subst:AfC submission/draftnew}} – robertsky (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Go easier than that, just put {{AfC submission/draft}}. Primefac (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Make Wikipedia:Articles for creation more obvious about how to create a redirect or category

The current layout of Wikipedia:Articles for creation, which places links to create redirects and categories at the very bottom below the fold, was created before the 2017 rewrite of the Article Wizard removed the ability to create redirects and categories. Most new users aren't going to scroll down below the note about reviewers, lists of recent articles, and counts of article submissions to find the paragraph about creating redirects or categories, and will instead end up at the article wizard which won't help them at all. I propose moving the "Creating redirects, adding categories or uploading files" section above the "Reviewers" section. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

resubmitting a draft

I assume this isn't correct procedure? It's happened three or four times now. – 2.O.Boxing 07:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Squared.Circle.Boxing no its not and its clear that the IPs are related to the submitter account as all are single purpose (the boxing twins), so falls under Sockpuppetry. Sometimes a warning or two for disruptive editing helps stop, if not if an article subject is definitely not notable (rather than just a source issue) then we normally take to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to shut down the issue. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    • User:Squared.Circle.Boxing - What you are asking about is removing the record of a previous decline or rejection of a draft. You are correct that that is not permitted. The decline message states that it (the decline message) should not be removed until the draft is accepted. Removing the record of previous declines is a relatively common abuse, and not a very effective one, because the reviewers normally notice that it has been done, and restore the record of the declines. As User:KylieTastic says, the offender can be warned, and the draft can be rejected, or nominated for deletion. In this case, it was done by IP addresses, and the fix is to request semi-protection, which I did, and which has been applied. So, yes, it is not permitted, and it is a relatively common but ineffective abuse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio on Draft:Bass (Mega Man)

Special:Diff/1080560948 - Here because not looking to make a big deal but is this declination of CSD correct?Slywriter (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Fandom page states that the content is released under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which is compatible with Wikipedia. G12 does not apply here because it excludes freely-licensed material where attribution is fixable. However, the page does need to acknowledge that text has been copied from the source, so I have added a statement to that effect in this diff. DanCherek (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, probably should have re-read G12. Will keep in mind for future.Slywriter (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The Great Translation Movement

I looked at this draft a couple of times, and couldn't really make heads or tails of it. I was going to have another look this morning, only to realise that it has already been moved into the main space (without being accepted, that is). Has anyone else come across this, and what are your thoughts? (I guess it's one for the new page patrol now, but still.) Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: I probably would not have accepted this page due to the 1. POV sources, not including RFA, 2. neologism, being a new twitter and reddit movement, 3. a limited amount of actual notability and 4. poorly written.
As with internet movements, perhaps its too soon to call its notability, but I feel it may not survive AfD in a few months, though usually, few such articles are deleted and are often just neglected. Gorden 2211 (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of St. Vincent Grammar School

Notice

The article St. Vincent Grammar School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable secondary sources in its 9.69-year history; no evidence of meeting the notability guideline

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: This article was accepted at AfC in 2012 when the notability standards and/or its enforcement may have differ from present day's standards and/or enforcement. – robertsky (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability and reviewers

When determining that the subject of a draft is notable, I usually try verifying the entire draft, removing content and applying tags accordingly, before accepting. This obviously takes quite a bit of time and reduces the number of promising drafts that I can review. How extensively do other reviewers check drafts? And are my efforts redundant if NPP reviewers do the same (I don't know how NPP works)? 15 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Because I see this as a triage situation, I first look the draft over to identify the claim of notability. If the draft asserts something that would pass an SNG (like NPOL, NOLY, etc.), it's easy to check the citation for that specific claim. The same is true for assertions towards ANYBIO. If there is only a claim for GNG, then yes, it's checking each source. Usually a draft will clearly pass or fail before I have to check the fourth or fifth reference so checking all is never necessary. You're doing more work than a mere draft merits. And since many editors rightly feel ownership over their edits, I'd rather the draft goes forward as they wrote it than re-writing solely so that it passes. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Concur with most of this - I do a source check first, which quickly allows me to determine if the subject is notable (and properly sourced). If an article is acceptable (and a BLP) I might remove the odd unsourced paragraph, but generally speaking I don't try to match up sources and statements for accuracy or do any major cleaning other than formatting, elinks, etc. Primefac (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
My method is similar to Chris's except I sometimes do cleanup or some formatting or I might search for additional sources if I think the subject is notable but another source or two would be helpful. I rarely read through all the sources cited. S0091 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm only going to do a lot of clean-up and development if the subject is of particular interest (for example, if it would make a good DYK). Otherwise I'm just asking myself, if I came across this article in mainspace, would I nominate it for deletion - if the answer is NO, I'm likely to accept the article (and do the bare minimum - categorising, MOS fixes, to make it suitable for mainspace). Sionk (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I've posted the flowchart from reviewer's instructions. If you check for copyright violations and notability you'll avoid most problems. BLPs require a bit more work. If you do more you're helping to maintain the AfC gauntlet. ~Kvng (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding edit conflicts

Tracked in github.com
Issue #153

On two occasions today I have edit conflicted with another editor when reviewing a draft (on User:EicSE/sandbox and User:Preetham Gowda R/sandbox). What happens is that the second review (and comment, if there is one) replaces the first, and both reviews send a post to the submitter's talk page. This seems problematic because of the duplicate messages on the talk page, which may be confusing. Is there any good way to avoid this? eviolite (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite I believe this to be a known and probably insurmountable problem. Serendipity is the only way to avoid this that I know of. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I see. Should we try to clean up manually by e.g. removing the duplicate talk page comments or just leave it alone when it happens? eviolite (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Would marking it as "under review" help avoid this problem? And a supplementary question: has anyone ever actually used that feature, or know anyone who has? ;) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I use it when I'm waiting for a redirect to be deleted, but never until I've actually completed my review and decided to accept. Rusalkii (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing I use it. I do so if `I am going to take a while. However,it will not stop one person hitting "Under Review" while the other hits accept/reject/decline.
It happens most often in the "Drafts in Userspace" category when two or more reviewers are working simultaneously with low hanging fruit - a good thing to be doing. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a known issue with AFCH. I believe it to be fixable. Could script AFCH to track the time you loaded the page, and then when you hit the submit button have AFCH compare the saved time to the top revision of the page history, and look for edit conflicts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
What we call edit conflicts in Wikipedia are what are known in computer science and electrical engineering as race conditions. They are a common problem in computing, especially in computer systems that support multiple users. They are increasingly likely as the number of users increases, and Wikipedia has very many users. There has been a great deal of practical and theoretical work done on minimizing race conditions, but they will happen, and there is no way to eliminate them. We have to be aware that they do happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I avoid conflicts by reviewing drafts in random order. Each of the categories by age has a "Random page in this category" button. A link like this does an even better job. ~Kvng (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Geoffrey Bartlett

There is quite an old draft at Draft:Geoffrey Bartlett about an Australian artist; it's a tricky one, and I was first going to just sail by, but I guess I shouldn't just ignore it because it's challenging. I would appreciate more eyes on it, though, and/or any words of wisdom.

Firstly, the creator has on their user page declared a COI, but it's not clear what this means — autobio, UPE, or something else?

Secondly, the draft cites a large number of sources, but most of them are offline, and some are a bit unclear. Now, I know that offline sources are acceptable, but when most of the article is supported by somewhat obscure offline texts, it begs the question how can we know they actually support the article contents, and do they even provide such coverage as to establish notability? (AGF and all that, I'm not accusing the author of anything inappropriate, but it is their first and only article, and perhaps they just haven't quite got the hang of referencing and notability yet.)

It has been suggested that the subject might satisfy WP:ARTIST notability, in which case there is less of a need to find sigcov in the sources, but even then we still need to be able to verify the contents, surely.

The fundamental objective of AfC is to gauge whether an article would survive at AfD, and I sincerely believe this would. On that basis one could argue we should just go ahead and accept it — but that IMHO turns the burden of proof upside-down, resulting in someone thinking of moving an AfD having to show that the subject isn't notable (again, very difficult because of the offline sources), when I don't think it has been yet shown conclusively (by the creating editor or others) that it is notable.

Any thoughts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you scroll down to Articles & Reviews here, there's a long list of newspaper coverage about him, in some of which he's clearly the primary topic. Here's something in the Sydney Morning Herald, I haven't checked any more but I expect there to be at least two more good articles and that seems plenty for GNG. Given that I can externally verify he's notable, I'd accept and AGF on the offline sources saying what they claim they do. Rusalkii (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:LuckyDesigns

I rejected Draft:LuckyDesigns two-and-a-bit weeks ago, yet the editor has continued to make about 100 edits to it, none that takes it closer to WP:NBIO. As the text is not exclusively promotional I don't think it is G11able. Do I just ignore it, wait until the editor gets bored at creating their vanity bio in draftspace and let it eventually get G13ed, or is this worth an MfD? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  • I would probably just ignore unless they remove the declines again or resubmit without any new significant indy RS - I do wonder what drives people to do this :/ KylieTastic (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done Thanks all. It has now been deleted as U5: Misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Give up AFC rights

I'd like to give up my AFC rights. Can someone help with that? Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Just don't use them. Don't review. It isn't required anyway. Is there a reason why you want to have the right removed? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hey Nomadicghumakkad the normal place would probably be the same as asking for them Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants however I'm sure Primefac or another admin will notice this request here. Robert McClenon see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Misuse_of_powers if you want to known the background. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done, this works fine (though I'm still annoyed I still miss out on notifications and didn't see this until the ping). Primefac (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Rightly pointed out. I don't want to have these rights because these constant allegations that are being made. If folks feel my AFC work is appropriate, I am happy to keep them. But in presence of these allegations, I don't prefer to keep them. What's the point of providing hours of selfless service to this platform and then go through this because some other editors don't agree with what you thought was notable and okay for mainspace. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, User:KylieTastic - Yuck. Another draftifying controversy. I know that some editors think that move-warring to draftify articles that are not ready for mainspace is sometimes necessary, and I think that is what AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Nomadicghumakkad I don't blame you from wanting to walk away. I haven't read it all as anytime I start read these type of ANI threads I just want to quit myself. I don't believe there should be any re-draftification and these issues should be sorted at AfD with consensus. If then an AfC reviewer is regularly getting it wrong you can address it with facts/consensus rather than opinions. I gave up skim reading when I saw the defence of a past action not being "unilateral" and thus against WP:DRAFT because of the later discussion in the ANI thread! KylieTastic (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Iowawrwrkshp is a brand new paid editor

They have self declared, and are very productive, albeit naïve. I have moved several of their main space creations to draft, reviewed a couple. I take the view that they are paid to learn their trade, and that repeated resubmissions simply mean amateur Wikipedia's helping them get their invoices paid 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Took me a while to figure out the COI angle, because their user page disclosure is a couple of degrees removed from the subjects of the articles. Had their username been a bit more oblique, I might have missed it altogether. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Very formulaic and simplistic article creation, loads of lists of books written, a welter of references, many/most/all lacking in quality. I've just marked all with paid editing and their talk pages with {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Banned user gaming the system of redirects to create music articles

How can we fix the problem of blocked or banned users asking for the creation of a redirect so they can create a new article without registering a username? Banned editor User:Rishabisajakepauler has been gaming the system in this manner, using IPs from Texas including Special:Contributions/47.190.14.71, Special:Contributions/108.217.3.222, and the range Special:Contributions/172.58.104.0/21. He came here and asked for Havin' My Way to be created as a redirect,[4] then he created the article with another Texas IP.[5] He came here asking for a redirect to the album 7220,[6] then created the article three months later.[7]

Editors unwittingly helping him evade his block include Idoghor Melody, Ss112, AshMusique, Rich Smith, Qwerfjkl and Lk95. Here are a bunch of links to his article creations from redirects.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] In another case, he took over a disambiguation page.[27]

I feel profoundly disturbed that we have a system in place that allows block evaders to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

When a redirect gets flipped from redirect to regular article, it gets marked as unpatrolled, and it is added to the WP:NPP queue. So that is one safeguard. WP:SPI is another avenue to explore. SPI won't allow checkusers to link usernames to IPs for privacy reasons, but can attract the attention of admins who will block on behavioral evidence. Taking over a disambiguation page is trickier... hopefully our Huggle folks and page watchers will catch that one. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae, @Binksternet, I watchlist all redirects I create, and then draftify them if they are converted into an article (although I missed Dancing Feet (song) above - I suspect I saw that an extended-confirmed editor (now blocked) had expanded the article, and thought not worth draftifying).
For taking over a dab page, maybe an edit filter could be put in place? Qwerfjkltalk 06:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/1075158931 for an example draftification. Qwerfjkltalk 06:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Binksternet:, I understand your concerns, just that I've not seen them pop up in my watchlist apart from Amrita Schools of Business which I saw one time ago but didn't give much attention, well, moments ago I was going through articles I created and saw it and my mind immediately flashed to this complain here. But as Novem Linguae noted above that “When a redirect gets flipped from redirect to regular article, it gets marked as unpatrolled, and it is added to the WP:NPP queue.” This Amrita article in question has been marked reviewed by Onel. I just rated it though. However, the AFC review banner is still there, don't know if to remove it or not. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Idoghor Melody, as the article hasn't been reviewed by an AfC reviewer, it should be removed. Qwerfjkltalk 06:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl: Doing that right away. We will put more eyes on the redirect's we create for IP's going forward. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

He's still actively making requests: this request yesterday was fulfilled by Idoghor Melody here. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Submit-a-draft suggestion

Hi, I just submitted a draft for a disambiguation page, Draft:PWX, and had a surprise when I was going through the submission process. Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Submitting noticed that the page was marked with {{disambiguation}} and prefilled a short description saying "Topics referred to by the same term". However another part of the same page gave me an error message warning me that my submission was likely to be declined because it didn't have any references. Disambiguation pages shouldn't have references, and since the page can detect that a submission is a disambiguation page, shouldn't the "you have no references" warning be disabled for disambiguation submissions? 49.198.51.54 (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. I'll implement this, but if I forget please leave a note on WT:AFCSW. – SD0001 (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary bug fix

A bug has caused the edit summary for the user talk page notification to say "declined (AFCH 0.9.1)" when declining or rejecting an AfC submission. Could anyone please review my proposed bug fix and merge the changes if possible? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed by Enterprisey GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'd rather say you get all the credit! :) Enterprisey (talk!) 19:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Plug-in electric vehicles in...

I've been seeing drafts like Draft:Plug-in electric vehicles in Maryland for many states, all of them fairly formulaic. Ingenuity, Greenman, and I have accepted a couple of them, while SounderBruce, Mcguy15, and Johannes Maximilian have declined some. I think all of them are about the same in terms of sources and other indicators of notability, so I wanted to get some more eyes on the collection. Rusalkii (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason I initially declined Plug-in electric vehicles in Georgia (U.S. state) was because the topic was a duplicate of Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Georgia. I thought it was pointless for the separate page to have substantially less prose than the section in the main article. I raised these concerns to the creator, and they said that most of the content in the main article is outdated. I responded, telling them to be bold and remove it, and upon the trimming of that section, I accepted the AfC. (Assuming it passes GNG) I believe the articles should be accepted, while keeping in mind to update the prose on Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_the_United_States, as to not leave 2 pages on the same topic. Hope this helps! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 04:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
As much as I generally dislike short pages that could easily be part of a larger existing page, Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States is huge and probably should be split. That being said, I don't think this particular information merits splitting, so whether this results in these satellite pages being small enough to redirect back to the main is a discussion to be had at the main article's talk page. That being said, if the other states have hit the point where they could theoretically be notable, then we should do the same for all of them. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem with the fundamental concept of any such pages is that they can be arbitrarily created for any topic without the need for significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources that are dedicated to "Plug-in electric vehicles in…" in a way that their primary subject is "Plug-in electric vehicles in …" don't exist. Most of these drafts in question are based on sources that describe the topic "Plug-in electric vehicle" in general, (or on primary sources). I also think it's sensible to once again highlight that the fundamental concept of the said drafts is simply "[SUBJECT] + [PLACE]". This "allows" creating any article based on sources that describe either [SUBJECT], or [PLACE], but without having to cite a single source that discusses both [ARTICLE + PLACE]. Thus, this doesn't only work for "Plug-in electric vehicles in …", but any topic: How about "Whales in the Arctic Ocean", "Narwhales in Canada", or "Narwhales in Creswell Bay"? It would be undoubtably unreasonable to create any of these articles without sources that explicitly discuss these exact topics. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Genuinely not trying to be pedantic here, but I think what I said jives with what you're talking about. The main article is too large, and so should be split off. I'm not saying that these articles should be split off, but something should be split off, and ideally something that fits your criteria. That would give a bit more space to re-merge these satellite pages (which likely are more of the cross-categorisation group than standalone articles) into the main article. My last point was more that it would seem odd to have only half of the states just due to one reviewer's criteria being different than another's, even if all of the states had drafts. Primefac (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
The entire "Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States" article is flawed. The first sentence should read something like this: "Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States are plug-in electric vehicles commonly found in the United States". Instead, the first noun is "adoption", and this "adoption" is "supported by the US federal government". Of course the article is large in size and totally fails at describing its topic – because it never defines what it is actually about. One can simply add anything "plug-in electric vehicle"-related to the article if it is also "United-States-related", to increase its byte count. This becomes especially evident when we take a closer look at the Operating costs and fuel economy section – none of the cited sources in that section describe "Plug-in electric vehicles in the United States". They are all about the United-States-specific tech specs (fuel consumption in miles per American gallon electric equivalent) of certain car models. Splitting the "Plug-in electric vehicles" article into multiple articles doesn't solve the problem – I'd argue that it'd spread the problem even further. Instead, I suggest adhering to WP:NOTEVERYTHING which I think is a very reasonable element of Wikipedia's WP:NOT content policy: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Id est that removing content from the article (that is only there because it is true), and doing so without moving this content into a new article is a valid option. But I guess this discussion should possibly be had at the article's talk page, as you suggested earlier. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

titleblacklist-forbidden-move

Getting "Error moving Draft:Yāfiʿī Arabic to Yāfiʿī Arabic: "titleblacklist-forbidden-move"". I assume this is a MediaWiki:Titleblacklist problem? Not sure what to do about it. Rusalkii (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rusalkii, just ask an admin to do it. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Rusalkii, just to verify, this is ready for acceptance? If so, let me know and I'll push it through. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to accept. Rusalkii (talk) 07:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 Done. You'll probably want to make some redirects for the non-diacritic forms of the name. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Made Yafii Arabic, though I've asked the submitter to comment since I'm not sure dropping the superscript all together is the correct way to handle this case. Rusalkii (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

COI and blocked user page creations

I am a new reviewer and I just accepted a page creation request for the page Scott Caizley based on the notability of the subject. There were enough WP:IS and WP:RS for me to (just) accept it and then tag it for improvement in main space. It was only after I approved it that I notice that the user being notified had a name suggesting a COI and that their account had been renamed a couple of times and they (see current account at User talk:Viscountalexanderhugo) have been blocked for promotional editing. Is there any particular process for this sort of situation and is it at all possible for the AFCH script to alert you if the user has been blocked?

Apologies for the mess Gusfriend (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an update in the pipeline that will notify AFCH users if the submitting editor is blocked. It's either in the final stages or has been accepted but not-yet implemented on the live version. Primefac (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the update. In this case it turned out to be the original article creator who has been blocked but it has been edited by other, non blocked, users since.Gusfriend (talk) Gusfriend (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we made the decision to check the submitter not the blocked user, since someone soft-blocked for a spam username might return under a new name and edit productively. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to change template wording

Hello all, there is an RFC underway to change the text appearing in {{AFC submission}} when it appears in the article space. Your input is welcomed at the discussion. Primefac (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. McClenon mobile (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarity on decline versus reject

I am confused by the somewhat interchangeable usage of decline/reject terminology. I understand decline to include both "not quite ready" and "it stands zero chance of surviving a hypothetical AfD". However, the instructions mention the term rejecting three times, however the key trigger for actually deleting it, would be a CSD tag not a rejection. Either I do not understand the distinction between decline/reject, or more explicit delineation would be helpful. Kind regards, and feel free to move this question to a more appropriate venue if necessary~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I know you're referring to the instructions themselves, but this conversation and parts of this conversation recently discussed the differences you are inquiring about and should get you started. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
That being said, I just went through the reviewing instructions and "rejection" is only discussed in its own section. Where are you seeing these "three times"? Primefac (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac that's actually what I meant. The word is mentioned three times in one section, but I was expecting a further elaboration. I see explanations that it's between a decline and a CSD for example. I'd be happy to add a short section on difference between decline/reject, but wanted to make sure I understood the distinction. In most cases, I think it results in people asking why their article was rejected, and being corrected that it was declined. For practical purposes, that is pretty much the same thing, and even a rejected article/topic could be worked on, so I find the hard distinction somewhat moot. All that said, it is useful to preserve language that encourages users to keep improving articles that aren't quite ready for main space. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
A declined article will have a resubmit button. A rejected article will display a stop sign and no resubmit button, making it harder for the draft submitter to resubmit. Resubmitting after a rejection (there are ways around it) often results in an MFD. Usually the article doesn't qualify for CSD else that would be used instead. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

AFCH Bug

Tracked in github.com
Issue #164
Tracked in github.com
Issue #159

Please see User talk:Keyvelaki as an example. This draft had more than one reason for the decline, plus AFC comments, but only the CV shows. @Enterprisey, would you mind taking a look, please? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I filed a couple of bug reports in 2021 that may be relevant. #164 and #159 in particular. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae They certainly seem to be linked. @Novem Linguae 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Copying my question from wikipeida:teahouse

Hello editors good morning my name is Pritam mostly people know as your pritam I am a film critic. I don't have any Wikipedia knowledge by gathering knowledge from youtube I added content and based on my common sense I edited a draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Raavan_(2022_film) pasted the link of the film releasing today of bengali superstar Jeet. I submitted review for this article now a yellow box appeared but before that a red box was there should I delete the red box? And how to remove that Draft: sign before Raavan pls say. 2409:4060:2E15:6F13:0:0:328A:C505 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Answered at Teahouse. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Drafts to Improve Articles on Endangered Species

I have reviewed three drafts this evening that are of articles on endangered species, but the species already have articles. I think that this may be a class project. I have tagged the drafts to be merged into the articles. One of them has already been merged in. I have asked the submitters whether this is a class project. If so, the instructor is mistaken as to what the AFC process is for, but the mistake is harmless, because the students can always merge the information in after the drafts are declined as existing articles. Other reviewers may encounter similar drafts. Everyone is acting in good faith, although the instructor is making a harmless mistake. The additional information does improve the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Submitted user page

Someone had submitted their user page as draft, with its associated talk page. I moved it to its appropriate title... and then spent a good while mopping up the mess left behind with all the redirs and messages etc. In hindsight, I reckon all I would have needed to do when moving it was to untick the 'leave redirect behind' box, but it didn't occur to me at the time. (I think they call this 'learning the hard way'.) Or was there a better way to handle this / something else I should have done? Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you were moving it manually, I would recommend not moving the user talk along with it, but suppressing the creation of a redirect is also a good idea (since redirs from a userpage to article space are problematic). Primefac (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Primefac — just had another one, and this time unchecking those boxes in the move dialogue made it all much simpler. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

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

and turns it into something like

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

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer Tamingimpala blocked as sock

Tamingimpala has been found to be a block-evading sockpuppet. They escaped detection for a year, and in that time collected a number of hats, including AFC reviewer. They are believed to have engaged in some paid/COI editing. I don't know whether that extended to their AFC reviewing. They accepted 20 drafts and declined 127, which seems a reasonable ratio. If there is good news, it is that they made many unproblematic edits, perhaps in an effort to create a legitimate facade. Their AFC reviewing may have fallen into that category. I leave it up to the community whether you want to reckeck their work or not. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like, from their talk page, it was only their recent editing over the past few months that started pushing non-notable article subjects that were frequently being AfD'ed and deleted. Everything from the beginning of their account, including their AfC reviewing and their article making, seems to have been done properly and with notable subjects (hence why they passed DYK reviews and such). If they were still doing any AfC reviewing since January, then I'd suggest taking a glance over of those to see if there's any issues. Otherwise, it seems like the COI issues were only a very recent and more blatant endeavor, which also led to them being caught because of it. SilverserenC 05:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Ah, looking back at an old version of their page listing their contributions, I see the usual suspects are going around and doing their revenge fantasies about banned users and trying to delete every article the person ever made. Thus making Wikipedia objectively worse in the process. I don't have the energy right now to try and prevent the active damage to Wikipedia they're doing. SilverserenC 05:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking at archived versions, most of those appear to be good work - if the issue with this editor is paid/COI editing, I don't believe an article on a uncontroversial 19th century teacher will be compromised by that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
But it was made by a banned user, therefore it must be deleted. Because, much like the United States prison system, Wikipedia is about punishment, not rehabilitation. We need to erase every facet of a sockpuppet that ever existed, no matter the cost or even the logic or rationality behind the decision. Since Wikipedia is not about making an encyclopedia, it's about the in groups and the out groups. SilverserenC 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I've requested that article is undeleted. I might go through the others later. BilledMammal (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Adi_Reddy_Boddu

I just reviewed this draft and declined it for advertising and a copyvio (which I've since removed). However, I'm concerned that this draft could be being used as a web host, since from the pageviews report it's gotten around 250 views since it was created a few days ago. The user who created it is called "Fame digital" which sounds like a UPE marketing company. Would this draft qualify for U5/G11 deletion? >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 00:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify for U5 because the U criteria can only be used in userspace. I don't personally think it qualifies for G11 because the article doesn't have a hypey, promotional tone, rather I feel it has a factual tone. However you could try putting a G11 tag on it, perhaps an admin might disagree with me and find it promotional enough to G11. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

User information template to invite people to use the wizard to create articles?

Is there a user invite template for inviting people to use the article wizard? I notice {{uw-wizard}}, but it isn't fit for purposes other than a page being created. People often write a new article on top of an existing location where it is not be be requested (such as at wP:FFU or WP:AFC/R, or elsewhere by overwriting something). In such a case {{uw-wizard}} is not appropriate, since the page in question has not been nominated for deletion. I'd like a similar template that doesn't suggest that I've nominated a page I haven't for deletion. It could say reverted instead of nominated for deletion.

Does such a template (or of similar functionality, or basic invitation to the wizard) exist? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Acting as judge & jury

I recently declined Draft:Hortto Kaalo because the sourcing wasn't up to scratch (not the author's fault — it had been translated from fiwiki, and the sourcing in the original was rubbish). I'm familiar enough with the band to know that they would be notable, and as the creating editor wasn't keen to develop it further, I took over the editing, and I think it's now ready to publish. I've submitted it for review, and my question is: can I also approve it myself, or should I leave that for others? (I know technically I can approve it, but somehow that feels vaguely inappropriate.) Never had a situation like this before, so I thought I'd rather ask than put my proverbial foot in it. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe that you have gotten it to a point where it would be likely to survive an AFD, then you are welcome to move the draft to the article space. Whether you do so by "AFC approval" or just by moving is entirely up to you, though given that you have improved the page it might be (optically?) better to just move the page and do the cleanup manually. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing: If you think it is ready for main space, I would just move it without submitting through AfC (unless you like the auto-cleanup Primefac mentioned). You are a reviewer and think it's ready, and AfC is an entirely optional process, so a simple move is sufficient. It will get a separate set of eyes from the WP:NPP folks (unless you're autopatrolled), which is not optional. -2pou (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, both. Meanwhile events have overtaken us, as Theroadislong has just kindly accepted it — ta muchly! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
DoubleGrazing Save you agonising and sweating over it! Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
We are not here to judge anything but basic inclusion criteria. If the topic is notable and there are no fatal flaws (such as WP:CV, severe WP:NPOV or failure to meet WP:BLP requirements), you accept it. If sourcing is not "up to scratch" you or anyone else can fix that in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
My comment about sources being rubbish referred to exactly what you also say: failure to establish notability and support the contents of the draft; in other words, "basic inclusion criteria", as you put it. In any case, my question wasn't whether I should have declined the draft; I'm pretty sure I did so correctly, but always happy to be proven wrong, of course. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing You also said I'm familiar enough with the band to know that they would be notable. In that case you can accept the draft as it is, watchlist it and you would presumably would WP:LIKELY be able to make a good notability case in an WP:AFD discussion. The core requirement for acceptance is that it is not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. It's not as high of a bar as most reviewers seem to think. If you don't believe me, spend some time participating at WP:AFD and assess for yourself. ~Kvng (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Personal request for AFC review

Hi all, Can we review the draft article (AFC) upon request placed on our talk page? Fade258 (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't, because I don't see why I should prioritize the people asking over the people waiting patiently in the queue, but there's no rule against it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with your opinion regarding this matter. Thanks! Fade258 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way of marking a submission pending a request for comment?

I was just looking at Draft:Foreign relations of the Byzantine Empire which was created from the page Greece–Turkey relations. When I went to the talk page I saw that the article is being considered for GA status and in the talk the desire to slim down the page was mentioned which triggered the creation of this page. With the Greece-Turkey page as is the Byzantine page would fail a RfD with a result of merge to the Greece-Turkey page but with the re-org then it would survive. My preferred approach with be to decline and say to come back when there is a consensus for the split but perhaps there is someone with a better approach. I have left a comment on the draft but will be leaving it untouched for the moment. Gusfriend (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The submitter clarified that there had been a long term discussion, it would serve multiple pages and has expanded the page to cover a wider area so I have approved it. Gusfriend (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Rick Murray and Rick Murray

I would appreciate if someone would take a second or third look at this draft and this redirect. I don't think that the need to look at these pages is urgent, but would still appreciate another review. I declined Draft:Rick Murray as not containing enough information to establish creative notability. The subject may be notable, in which case the originator can expand the draft and resubmit it. However, there is a name collision, because Rick Murray appears to be a redirect to a list of fictional characters. The history shows that there once was an article for the character, and it was cut down to a redirect. So far, that is fine. If the draft BLP is accepted, the redirect should be deleted, because the hatnote that I have put on the draft will take its place. However, the problem is that Rick Murray isn't in the list of fictional characters. This seems to have been an error at some point in the history of the list of characters. I have tagged the list of characters as needing cleanup, and have put a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Degrassi task force for another look. Does anyone else have any other suggestions for what to do? I haven't encountered this particular anomaly in the past. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Going through wikiblame, it was at one time listed, Special:Permalink/297860928, at least up till sometime in 2009. Running out of time to look at the sequence of the page histories of both list and the redirect, but there should be something along the lines of content split and then content merge not being followed up since Rick Murray turned into a redirect may be possible.
If the draft is accepted, I would move the redirect to Rick Murray (fictional character) to save the page history, and move the draft into the there. If the entry is restored in the list, I would still move the redirect, turn 'Rick Murray' into a disambiguation page, and move the draft to Rick Murray (businessman) or something similar. The page views of the redirect page is not trival, hence I am unable to evaluate if the draft or the fictional character could be the primary topic.
I had done a similar move, at Draft:Hegen. Hegen was a redirect to Brădeni, an alternate name, while the draft was about a company of the same name. However, as the page views for the redirect was trival (less then view a day), I decided to move the draft into Hegen. As an acknowledgement to the history of the redirection, I left a hatnote on the new article to point to Bradeni. It also helped that Hegen was mentioned in Bradeni article to justify the hatnote. So far, I have not received any complaints/feedback about the move. – robertsky (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

New user getting involved

There's a new user (< 24 hrs) Musiclaborotry behaving a bit strangely with regards to a couple of pending drafts. I've just messaged them on their User talk:Musiclaborotry page to query these. Maybe someone else could take a look? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone who was paid to create an article about an individual, but who has absolutely no idea how Wikipedia works. Luckily, Wikipedia has a rollback function. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing, @Johannes Maximilian, the user page says they are here to create "new article about South African new and upcoming artists". Obviously WP doesn't want articles about new and upcoming artists -- Musiclaborotry apparently doesn't know this. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Any well-sourced content worthy of an article in an encyclopedia(!) is welcome on Wikipedia. Whilst new artists (if they have been subject to significant coverage in reliable sources) have a chance at an article, upcoming artists cannot be discussed in an article in an encyclopedia. That is, simply speaking, because encyclopedias only describe things that are considered to be "well-known" (published) knowledge. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This user has now 'approved' their own draft, Uncle Waffles, even issuing an AfC notice to that effect on their talk page. I can't tell whether they genuinely think that's how you do things here, or whether they're trying to game the system; any queries are just met with counter-questions and requests. I don't think there's anything there quite worth of bringing this to ANI, but it is odd all the same. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

compact-ambox

Page watchers may be interested (i.e. know more than me) in Template talk:AfC submission#compact-ambox. Please leave a comment there if that use looks wrong (or right). Izno (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion and question

I must admit to sometimes feeling dispirited by the graph with the number of outstanding requests at the top of this page and I was wondering if we would have a chart of number of AfC reviews undertaken by day alongside it or elsewhere in the project. This would help highlight how much work is being done by the project.

The question that I have is, is there somewhere I can keep track of my accept / decline submission numbers (and possibly the numbers for the whole project). Again, I think that people would feel better about the rejection of their submissions if they knew that X% of pages were rejected. Gusfriend (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

There is work done currently to keep track of individual AfC activities. See: https://github.com/WPAFC/afch-rewrite/pull/232 – robertsky (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gusfriend: this tracks at least some of your AfC activity. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
If there is a genuine desire, I can bring back the monthly summaries, which includes comparisons of submissions-to-reviews amongst other things. I stopped mainly because no one seemed to be using or otherwise indicating that they found it useful. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, monthly AFC backlog drive should be created in every month if possible. Fade258 (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
If we have a monthly backlog drive, then it no longer becomes a backlog drive and just becomes... normal AFC reviewing? also not sure how that relates to my comment in any way. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Ohh, then on that particular monthly backlog drive, we could add the draft for review which has been pending from over 3-4 months, this helps us to review old ones, by only reviewing new we generally ignore the old submissions. Fade258 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
is this [28] more what you were looking for? Theroadislong (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
And here's the total we all reviewed last week. 1311 with a 13% accept rate, apparently. Happy to tweak this for other time periods if anyone's interested. Rusalkii (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Incidentally, looks like you (Theroadislong) reviewed slightly under 9% of all submissions last week, whereas I have fallen off the map entirely. That's what coding does to you, I guess, you get too lazy for real work [Joke]. Rusalkii (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone. That largely answers my questions and it is good to know that my rate of acceptance is not out of line with that of others. I like the report about 1311 last week with 13% acceptance and think that it would be great for that sort of information to be provided to users who submit something so that (a) they understand that the hard working people at AfC are hard working going through things and (b) given the 13% rate don't take it personally if your request gets declined.Gusfriend (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Question on how individual sources can contribute to GNG

Can a source still contribute to GNG if it only contains a subset of "SIGCOV", "reliable", and "independent"? So if there are two sources that are being used to show a subject meets GNG, do they BOTH have to contain significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, or can they each have a subset of those elements that "add up" to the subject globally having "SIGCOV", reliable sources, and sources that are independent of the subject? Note this question is ONLY about sources counting toward GNG, it is not about what sources can be in the article. A pointer to a previous discussion on this would be helpful. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm parsing your question correctly, but if (for example) you had one source that was reliable-but-short, and one that was significant-coverage-but-primary, I would argue that does not demonstrate GNG has been met. In other words, yes, in order to demonstrate GNG you need enough sources that meet WP:42; if that is met then there isn't any issue with primary sources being used to flesh out other details. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay It might help to read WP:PRIMARY and also WP:SELFPUB each of which speaks of the limited circumstances in which this type of reference may be used. Broadly, either of that style of reference may be used to substantiate uncontroversial facts, that is those not susceptible to challenge.
Neither is of any use in establishing notability in a Wikipedia sense.
As an example, a Press Release is generated by or for the subject of the release. It will have significant coverage. It may be in a Reliable Source, but it is not independent of the subject. While it might be used to establish a simple fact it confers no notability. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is my understanding as well. However, an established editor is arguing this is completely wrong, that "everyone knows" those qualities can be distributed across sources... So I am checking that the established interpretation is indeed that each source that is intended to contribute to GNG does need to meet all of those criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
As the established editor in question, my point (elaborated here) is not that a source that is unreliable, or that is self-published, can ever contribute to Notability. Rather, I was saying that the degree of RS, independent, secondary coverage required from each source by SIGCOV is not a fixed threshold for each aspect - like SIRS - but depends on the context. To give the most obvious example, one indelendent, secondary RS with very "deep" coverage of a GNG topic can compensate for the rest of the sources being mere mentions (at least, this is what SIGCOV implies). Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
These were the statements you made that seemed to directly conflict with what I understand GNG to mean, and which I wanted to clarify with other experienced editors:
1. As far as your first four points go, which are less original, their logic does not require two GNG sources, as the GNG itself does not. SIGCOV allows these qualities to be distributed among sources (as opposed to SIRS, which requires them to be present in each source) which means that, strictly speaking, all these GNG requirements can be met with no "GNG sources" at all.
2.

As "everyone knows", the difference between SIRS and SIGCOV is reflected in the following text of SIRS: An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. This is not true for SIGCOV/GNG, where it is specified (under "sources") that There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are generally expected, not required, and editors are to take into consideration quality and depth of coverage - as a whole, rather than SIRS' requirement that a source have all relevant qualities (including CORPDEPTH) to be counted.
So, for example, while non-independent sources do not generally count for Notability, a topic that has some independent, secondary coverage and more extensive coverage that is reliable, but not fully independent or secondary, can pass SIGCOV better than, say, a subject that has, say, only two indisputably independent, secondary sources where the coverage has less depth.

3. But SIGCOV doesn't say that multiple sources are required that meet each of the SIGCOV criteria, it is actually quite explicit about that when you read the "sources" section, and so people who treat it as though it does are simply wrong. That approach is SIRS, not SIGCOV.
The key facet that I am disputing here is your assertion that GNG does not require each of its contributory sources to meet each of the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
And my point, clarified here, is that there is no fixed threshold of each aspect of SIGCOV required for a source to contribute to GNG Notability. Each criterion needs to be met, but SIGCOV significance is widely contextual (and taking the guideline literally, is a very low threshold) while reliability also represents a rather wide range of acceptable sources. SIGCOV simply does not require that each source meet all of these criteria at a specified level before we take it into account in determining GNG notability - unlike WP:SIRS for NCORP, which does. Newimpartial (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, are you still arguing that each of the characteristics outlined in WP:GNG does not have to be present in each source that is intended to contribute toward GNG? Do you still dispute that a non-independent or non-secondary source, of any depth or quality, or one that provides only trivial coverage, cannot be used for GNG?
And just because SIRS gives more detailed, NCORP-specific minimum expectations for some criteria doesn't mean GNG doesn't also have a minimum expectation for all its contributing sources. JoelleJay (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
What I am saying is that there is no standard for each of these aspects of SIGCOV that applies to all GNG topics equally and that must always be met at the same standard. While unreliable sources, ABOUTSELF sources and PROMO sources never contribute to Notability, such qualities as reliability and, above all, significance/depth exist on a sliding scale. The minimum value of reliability is that a source be reliable for the claim for which it is cited (the WP:V principle); the minimum unit of significance is a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content - but these are very low, formal thresholds. What matters the most is established in "sources" - they vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. This is a trade-off between source quality, depth and number of sources, and under SIGCIV (unlike SIRS) there is no fixed minimum number, length or quality level required, at least among formally independent, minimally reliable sources.
As a concrete example, a reliable source, independent of the subject, that verifies only that the subject has won a major award is correctly understood as addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and therefore contributes to Notability even if the mention is much shorter than the "one paragraph" threshold set out in the AfC reviewing instructions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
No one is arguing that there's some uniform, unstated degree of each element required by GNG, but a source must still meet each of the standards defined in the guideline for it to be considered for GNG. Once it has been established as reliable, independent, secondary, and possessing non-trivial coverage, the source can be assessed for its depth, content, and quality in the context of any other GNG sources. The guideline is therefore providing basic exclusionary criteria, allowing editors to more quickly and easily discount a source from GNG consideration.

As a concrete example, a reliable source, independent of the subject, that verifies only that the subject has won a major award is correctly understood as addressing the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and therefore contributes to Notability

But such a source is not contributing to notability through GNG. And it is certainly not providing the SIGCOV aspect you're claiming -- the sections of ANYBIO and NPROF that would grant notability based on winning an award are totally independent of the criteria needed for other subjects. JoelleJay (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
To start, again, at the end, I don't understand why you think the SIGCOV guideline would deny that the source I used as an example would count towards GNG Notability - and your statement that it is not is an excellent example of why I regard source table bingo and the approach it embodies (understanding SIGCOV as requiring a source to meet specified minima of significant coverage, reliability, independence and "secondariness") to be profoundly mistaken.
  • First, the requirement for significant coverage in SIGCOV is that the source addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. The source in my example does so.
  • The second requirement is that the source be reliable; SIGCOV reliability links to WP:RS which demands reliable, published sources and is backstopped by WP:V; the source in my example is defined as reliable.
  • Also specified in the example is that the source is independent of the subject (SIGCOV's language on independence is in any case a lower bar than that specified for biographies in NBIO or for corporate topics in NCORP).
  • The source offered in my example is not secondary; however, it is explicit in SIGCOV that the requirement for secondary sourcing is to be assessed at the article level, not per source. The header statement of SIGCOV is that a topic receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the sources bullet of SIGGCOV, where the secondary requirement is discussed, specifies that sources "should", not "must", be secondary, and that o fixed number of sources - not even two - is mandatory to meet this requirement.
So in the example I gave, the source has all the specified characteristics for SIGCOV except for being secondary, and not all GNG/SIGCOV sources are required to be secondary, according to the guideline. The length of coverage in the source is less than some rules of thumb (including AfC reviewing instructions) specify, but that doesn't preclude it from meeting actual SIGCOV requirements. For the GNG to be met in this example, some other sources would be needed, and those sources would have include secondary sourcing as well as treatment of the subject at greater depth (to satisfy NOTDIRECTORY) - but the guideline insists that these be evaluated globally, not by nitpicking each source. Yes, the only sources relevant to Notability are reliable and independent of the subject, but even those criteria are relative to the topic and statements of the article; meanwhile, depth of coverage and secondary sourcing are both required, but they are required at the article level and not of each individual source (above a very low minimum threshold of significance, which is rooted in NOR principles rather than in a paragraph, word or page count minimum).
As an aside, one of the main reasons SNG alternatives to GNG are so necessary to the health of WP as a project is precisely to avoid the nitpicky "coverage from this source isn't long enough and this source isn't secondary enough" when it comes to impeccably RS facts directly related to (what I prefer to call) the claim to significance of the article's subject. If SIGCOV were understood correctly, these sources would always meet SIGCOV. The instances when people insist that sometimes they don't - often through source table Bingo - are the major rationale for me to oppose GNG fundamentalism across the project. If editors could adopt a more nuanced approach to GNG/SIGCOV, then that would account better for a wider range of Notability decisions, but instead for a number of years editors have tried to inject AUD and CORPDEPTH criteria (outside of their intended place in NORG), mostly to deny Notability to topics they personally do not consider encyclopedic. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Your example, if it was just an announcement of the winner of an award, would not satisfy SIGCOV as it would not cover the subject in detail. It would also fail independence (and would be primary), as the awarding org is not independent of the awardee. Both of these are basic expectations of GNG that are recognized pretty much universally at AfD.
The source offered in my example is not secondary; however, it is explicit in SIGCOV that the requirement for secondary sourcing is to be assessed at the article level, not per source. The header statement of SIGCOV is that a topic receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and the sources bullet of SIGGCOV, where the secondary requirement is discussed, specifies that sources "should", not "must", be secondary, and that o fixed number of sources - not even two - is mandatory to meet this requirement.
Secondary coverage is a requirement for a source to count toward GNG. It is absolutely not "explicit" that it only be assessed at the article level; how can you possibly interpret the fact that GNG doesn't mandate a specific number of sources as evidence that a particular source doesn't have to meet any particular criterion?? Have you considered that maybe the GNG interpretation used by AfC and NPP and in tens of thousands of AfDs is actually the consensus?
If, as it now seems, your entire argument rests on "should" being used in various places where "must" could have been used, then I think we have a much greater CIR problem here since that approach would handicap all the policies that use "should", like WIKIVOICE, UNDUE, NOTRS, and BLP. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Your apparent assumption that "should" and "must" are always synonyms strikes me as potentially a much larger CIR problem. Is are generally expected the same as "are always required", too? As far as your OTHERSTUFF examples are concerned, UNDUE uses should concerning editor behaviour, a different kind of normative statement from the one SIGCOV places in sources. Again, CIR.

What text of SIGCOV do you see as supporting your statement that Secondary coverage is a requirement for a source to count toward GNG (my emphasis)? The opening paragraph of SIGCOV doesn't say that; reliable doesn't say that; sources doesn't say that (as previously discussed ) and presumed doesn't say that, either. The GNG simply does not make that assertion, where it comes to individual sources. (The argument, "but people have interpreted it that way at AfD" isn't really relevant: people have interpreted AUD as applying to non-CORP topics, and have claimed that topics meeting NPROF or AUTHOR also require GNG sourcing. Just because someone makes an argument, and someone else closes an AfD in agreement with that argument, doesn't make it policy.)

Also, concerning your first paragraph, the assertion that who or what is the recipient of an award is not sufficient detail to satisfy the NOR requirement of SIGCOV, and the opinion that a grantor of an award is in a WP:COI relationship with an awardee and therefore does not satisfy the WP:INDEPENDENT requirement as a source for the fact of the award - these views are not grounded in Wikipedia policy and only serve as potent reminders of why we can't have nice things. Newimpartial (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm confident an interpretation of "should" as closer to "must" is vastly preferable to one where directions like how to handle a BLP vio or how to state controversial stances in articles are merely weak suggestions.
As I have said like 800 times now, the opening sentence of GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You still haven't explained why you think the significant coverage doesn't have to be in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The "secondariness" is part of the definition given for "sources", it is not a separable quality.
An announcement stating "X won Y award", released by Y organization, is plainly a trivial mention per the example given in SIGCOV. Being merely mentioned never counts as significant coverage. And a media announcement by an organization about someone becoming a beneficiary of that organization is clearly a work produced by an affiliate of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Pretending that an announcement from the grantor that X BLP won a major award is equivalent to the example given in SIGCIV, "In high school, (Bill Clinton was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is CIR all over again. And pretending that all short mentions are mere mentions and therefore don't count towards Notability is simply unsupported by any of the applicable guidelines; the animating principle of significance in SIGCOV is WP:NOR, not some editor's assessment of the relevant word count from the source. An independent, reliable source that supports a statement that has encyclopedic value should always contribute to the assessment of Notability (outside of NCORP where stricter criteria apply).
And speaking of CIR, if you read me as saying that editor instructions using should are merely weak suggestions - well, not only was I not saying that; that statesmen was unrelated to what I did say in any way at all, that I can discern. It reads to me as either a red herring or a dead cat, and I'm not sure which.
You haven't supplied any evidence for your assertion that "all sources must be secondary", since the actual sources bullet doesn't say that at all. The actual guideline says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected - IMO, this passage goes out of its way not to say "two secondary sources are required for GNG Notability", which was the question at issue.Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Do you not understand what a trivial mention is? Your interpretation of GNG would allow an article on someone based entirely off a handful of regional book award orgs mentioning that person as among their recipients since, according to you, these would satisfy all of SIGCOV, RS, and INDY. There would be no GNG-based reason to oppose creation of such an article; editors would instead have to argue over the (wildly subjective) "encyclopedic value" of every single verifiable fact on that subject, because, in your view, GNG could technically be automatically satisfied by just one of those sources. In this situation, why would we have notability guidelines at all if the only factors that can be used to exclude a topic are what the core policies explicitly say you "must" not have?
This is clearly not what happens on Wikipedia, and never has been. Just because you personally disagree with the interpretation of GNG used by AfC, NPP, and--based on your AfD stats--the vast majority of GNG-specific AfD outcomes, doesn't mean you can just disregard those projects from what determines consensus.
You haven't supplied any evidence for your assertion that "all sources must be secondary", since the actual sources bullet doesn't say that at all. The actual guideline says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected, which goes out of its way not to say "two secondary sources are required for GNG Notability", which was the question at issue.
Your interpretation of "should" obviates the entire purpose of this bullet point as anything beyond a mere suggestion and necessitates ignoring the first sentence of GNG.
I recommend you take this up on the WP:N TP so we can have a wider discussion, since I think we are each very familiar with the other's argument at this point. JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know on what basis you can say that we are each very familiar with the other's argument, when you are constantly conjuring up straw goats that have nothing in particular in common with what I have actually said or believe to be true. One recent example: Your interpretation of GNG would allow an article on someone based entirely off a handful of regional book award orgs mentioning that person as among their recipients since, according to you, these would satisfy all of SIGCOV, RS, and INDY - that isn't true in any way. In my actual view, SIGCOV has to actually be met by the available sources, taken together (and not in some silly source-by-source Bingo. Also, constructing these straw goats and then saying This is clearly not what happens on Wikipedia, and never has been doesn't really do anything to strengthen your argument, if that was your intention).
Since you have misunderstood my interpretation of GNG so profoundly, I will try again to explain. The whole point of assessing criteria globally is that the global criteria actually have to be met. You seem to believe that if one source that isn't SECONDARY is taken into account, then articles with no secondary sources will be said to pass SIGCOV. You have also supposed that in my view GNG could technically be automatically satisfied by just one of those sources, but those statements once again are pretty much the opposite of what I actually said and believe.
Secondary sourcing is required for an encyclopaedic article per GNG (because analytical claims must be based on secondary sources, and an article nominally constructed from a few, bare facts would violate NOTDIRECTORY - at least, that is how I understand it). But as the sources bullet of SIGCOV very strongly implies, one really extensive, secondary source can suffice to meet this requirement, and there are tradeoffs between secondary-ness, depth of coverage and number of sources so that the GNG compliance of articles is supposed to be based on overall (available) sourcing, not nitpicking the word count of specific sources.
So one non-secondary source alone would never satisfy "my interpretation of GNG" (your term; I just call it GNG). But one quality non-secondary source along with briefer, but still "non-trivial" mentions from other reliable, independent sources definitely can satisfy GNG, and there are plenty of AfD outcomes and stable non-stub articles available to give evidence for that statement. Meanwhile, your idea that a "trivial mention" under SIGCOV is defined solely by length of reference is unsupported by policy - the difference between an incidental mention of an otherwise non-notable band and being the recipient of a significant literary award ought to be obvious to those who would participate in AfD in a way that complies with our policies and guidelines.
Also I don't know why you think I would be hostile to Notability guidelines and their importance in any way. Taking them seriously - including taking seriously the differences between SIGCIV, NBIO and NCORP - is my way of honouring, not undermining, the purpose of those guidelines. I do wish our Notabiity ecosystem had a better way to consider a topic's credible claim to significance than sublimating those concerns into the GNG framework, which doesn't really work - but that concern isn't hostile to WP:N either in principle or in practice.
Finally, when I follow the links from the first paragraph of SOGCOV to NOR and from the independent bullet to COI, I am not at all implying that only the policies matter and WP:N is incidental. But reading the "independent" bullet as though it were talking about something other than COI, or the minimum threshold of significance as though it were based on something other than NOR and NOT, simply leads to misunderstanding of the GNG, AFAICT. Newimpartial (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You don't need to reexplain the concept of "global assessment", it's not like having minimal criteria for each contributory source somehow makes this impossible or incomprehensible. But if the GNG could be partially met by a source that is not independent or that does not contain SIGCOV, that would allow a biography to exist where the only SIGCOV was in a staff profile and the only independent secondary sources were trivial mentions. Same with your hypothetical award announcement, which you claimed was both independent and contained SIGCOV. Your reading of GNG would not technically exclude an article from meeting GNG if it contained just this one source (since according to the "sources" bullet the secondariness and multiplicity are optional for meeting GNG), and if it contained a few secondary (but non-independent and non-SIGCOV) refs as well it would also comply with N. We would therefore have to rely on subjective evaluations of what is "encyclopedic" and what has "noteworthiness" or "merit" in order to delete it/reject at AfC.
But one quality non-secondary source along with briefer, but still "non-trivial" mentions from other reliable, independent sources definitely can satisfy GNG, and there are plenty of AfD outcomes and stable non-stub articles available to give evidence for that statement. Meanwhile, your idea that a "trivial mention" under SIGCOV is defined solely by length of reference is unsupported by policy - the difference between an incidental mention of an otherwise non-notable band and being the recipient of a significant literary award ought to be obvious to those who would participate in AfD in a way that complies with our policies and guidelines.
Where are these AfDs in which a SIGCOV source that is acknowledged to be primary is being used to support a claim of GNG (and not ANYBIO/NPROF/etc.)? Or where cobbling together non-trivial but still non-SIGCOV sources is used to satisfy GNG as opposed to BASIC? Where is this alleged consensus that a "trivial mention" means "only mentions occurring in a trivial context", and therefore being namedropped in a list of recipients of a significant honor is sufficiently "direct" and "in detail" to write more than half a paragraph on the subject?
But reading the "independent" bullet as though it were talking about something other than COI
Reading the "independent" bullet as if it was only talking about some narrow definition of COI is definitely not supported by the PAGs. Can you seriously not see how an award organization has a vested interest in promoting its recipients and portraying them in the most positive light, and why an article based on such sources would run afoul of NPOV? Why would this be any different from an academic society releasing glowing bios of their newest fellows, or a wealthy donor personally describing and praising the non-profit they just gave $1 million to? JoelleJay (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping to diffuse the WALLOFTEXT to which I have been contributing, so I will not try to answer everything. But to begin at the end, what I have seen is primary sources (e.g., for awards) used for that for which they are reliable - the fact of an award - and not for glowing BIOs or the equivalent statement about literary workz etc. Reliability, per WP:V, is always reliability for a specific claim, and no source can be used for a claim for which it is not reliable. I thought each and every one of my examples was clear about this.
And apparently I do have to keep explaining global assessment, because you continue to assert that my interpretation would allow a biography to exist where the only SIGCOV was in a staff profile and the only independent secondary sources were trivial mentions. Setting aside that in the case of a biography the stricter requirements of NBASIC apply - even apart from that, "my interpretation" has to be met by reliable, independent sourcing, so the staff profile doesn't count, and if the independent RS are in fact trivial then GNG is not met. "My interpretation" also requires secondary sourcing - it is just that, following actual GNG, it may be concentrated in one quality source with depth or distributed among many briefer passages that still offer SIGCOV, encyclopaedic references. This is what I mean by "global assessment" and have meant since the beginning of this discussion (and before).
Finally, I was not proposing that a more nuanced reading of WP:N ought to be used by AfC reviewers. I understand that the philosophy of this specific project requires that approved articles be unimpeachably Notable and sourced. But there isn't community consensus that the same criteria should apply elsewhere on WP: there is of course some bleed-over and scope creep, but the continued existence and viability of other paths into article space proves, I think, that the AfC way is not the only way. Newimpartial (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
To meet gng, I was taught that each source needs to meet each criteria. So there must be multiple sources (2+) that each meet all of the criteria. In addition to the 3 criteria you mentioned, must also be secondary. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I understand that this is what AfC volunteers are "taught in school", but the wild world of WP notability is considerably more complex than the guidance offered to AfC volunteers. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Is there a AfC school? Why I wasn't informed there's one? Do you mean I have been relying wrongly on what I learn from others in discussions at the various venues? – robertsky (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I was making a facetious reference to the reviewing instructions. My review of the Talk pages here before making my comment was strictly limited... Newimpartial (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The reviewing instructions gives a structure to what to expect during a review, what pitfalls to avoid during a review, and what canned/standard rationales to give for each decline/reject decision in addition to whatever customised feedback we want to give. By the time editors apply to be AfC reviewers, we have (varying, but sufficient) levels of content creation experience on Wikipedia. And we rely mostly on that experience and the discussions on Wikipedia in general when reviewing drafts. Have you read through the guide? There is nothing in there about Novem Linguae's assertion of each source needs to meet each criteria. – robertsky (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. I was thinking more of the broad-brush guidance about reliability of sources and significance of mentions, which I found more misleading than helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
What I wanted out of this was to get the wider community's interpretation of GNG, not to paralitigate the topic with the same editor. So @Primefac, @Timtrent, @Novem Linguae, @Robertsky -- do you know of any prior discussions on this specific "ambiguity" that might be informative re: the operating consensus? JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay one AfD that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Jewellery Group. – robertsky (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Robertsky That article was under NORG, not GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay my understanding is the SNGs should be and are clarifications of how GNG and/or other central guidelines can be applied specifically to individual subjects. – robertsky (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
That is very interesting, but it isn't at all what WP:SNG says - and the current text or the latter resulted from a well-workshopped and widely participated RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Empahsis, mine.
Like you said, SNGs are results of well-workshopped and widely pariticapted RfCs. These discussions are rooted in the central tennets, GNG, etc. The allowance for articles that are initially presumed notable under SNGs to be deleted via AfD (like the spate of deletions of various footballer articles) if they are found not to be notable is a proof that SNGs should not be considered in the same standing as GNG by default. However, in most cases they are. My view that why editors uses NBIO, NORG, etc by default in their discussions, in addition of the consensus bulding process, is that these SNGs are clear and specific as to why and how the subjects can be notable; and that the types of sources they specify or advise to use are generally acceptable even in GNG to determine if the subject is notable. Some SNGs are even stricter than that GNG, like WP:NPROF. – robertsky (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be making a category error, in your generalization that SNGs should not be considered in the same standing as GNG by default. This difference of standing is really only true in NSPORTS, and neither the SNG text nor the wording of other SNGs support this interpretation for other SNGs in general. You seem to be using the former NSPORTS presumption of Notability as equivalent to the presumption of Notability elsewhere in NBIO (or for other SNGs), but that equivalency doesn't work.
For at least the last decade, NSPORTS has been understood as presumptive of, or "predicting" GNG Notability, This has never been true for other NBIO SNGs. The NSPORTS domain has also been subject to large-scale bot-like creation of articles, which is not true in most other areas. So of course NSPORTS has seen the mass creation of articles which are then found not to meet "GNG" (athletes should always have been subject to NBASIC instead, but whatever) - this isn't evidence that any of the other SNGs was intended to, or actually does, work in this way. Most SNGs offer a presumption of WP:N notability directly, rather than "predicting" a GNG pass.
On the other hand, you are quite right that several SNGs - notably NORG and NNUMBER, and to some extent NBIO and NFILM - are in fact stricter than GNG and that passing GNG is no guarantee of Notability, and the presumption of an article, either. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, many of the SNGs uses GNG as their premise and largely stuck to it, hence the categorisation as well. As for NSPORTS, there've been work done since the RfC, and last I saw (yesterday), it is still a work in progress. Kudos to the editors working on that. – robertsky (talk) 01:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@Robertsky I agree that the SNGs in general were constructed with at least the basic tenets of GNG in mind, with several being pretty much identical to or explicitly based on GNG (e.g. NFILM, NEVENT, NWEB, NASTRO, NSPORT). The only ones that expressly bypass GNG wholesale are NPROF and NGEO, and the only ones I've seen where failing the SNG is successfully used as a deletion criterion despite meeting GNG are NPOL and certain cases of NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You are leaving out the achiecement-based criteria in NBIO and NMUSIC, some of which we have previously discussed, which also bypass GNG, as well as the restrictions for sourcing in NBASIC compared to GNG which make the former more restrictive. You are also leaving out the NOT-based prohibitions in NBIO and NFILM, which produce deletions on a pretty consistent basis. If people were in the habit of creating articles within the domain of NNUMBER, I'm sure we would see plenty of deletions there too. Newimpartial (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay TL;DR but questions like this are discussed routinely at WP:AFD. IME, there's not a closed-form answer. I suggest participating in some WP:AFD discussions on topics you're familiar with to get a sense of how the process works and which way the wind is blowing. WP:AFC works under the shadow of WP:AFD as the overall goal here is to accept drafts that are not WP:LIKELY to be deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kvng I've actually never seen the argument (that a source can contribute to GNG even if it doesn't meet all of the GNG criteria) at AfD. Usually if editors are trying to keep a subject who doesn't have any independent SIGCOV they make their case through ANYBIO or BASIC, or through IAR, rather than claiming GNG expressly permits non-independent/non-SIGCOV/non-secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@JoelleJay I've seen editors make strained arguments that iffy sources are actually reliable. It's pretty clear that WP:42 requires significant coverage in reliable sources so this is an even more strained argument. ~Kvng (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there's a basic misunderstanding--that we decide on notability strictly according to the written guidelines. We decide on the bais of our interpretation of the guidelines--sometimes this will indeed be an agreement to use a guidline literally, but even so there are always edge cases and special circumstances. More commonly, we use our individual understanding of what we think to be the correct interpretations, and fortunately these very often do agree. Sometimes they do not, and I think a great many of us make a holistic judgment: does this article belong in WP? And then if others disagree, we look for whatever arguments might support our intuitive positions--or, for that mater, our intuitive prejudices. An as a final resort we have the most important policy of all: IAR--we can in practice include whatever we have a majority of interested people to include, (Butthisis a discussion for WT:N, not here.
That's because for the purposes of afC , none of this matters. We do not decide on notability at AfC. The only role ofAfC is to predict what the decision would be at AfD. This is completely different from the way we discuss at AfD, which is where the decisions are made. At AfC, it is possible to be objective and for reviewers of very different viewpoints to decide in a uniform manner. If I encounter a draft whee I thin we ought to have an article, but I know that any article will almost certainly be deleted, I ought not accept it, however wrong I think the afd decision would be. If I encounter a draft which I know from experience will probably be accepted, however disgraceful I think it would be in an encyclopedia. The role of AfC is not to make decisions, but prediction, and the only way to learn it is to see what actually happens to articles at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
@DGG, while I agree with most of this I'll note that I do think it is important at AfD for editors to be on the same page when it comes to what kind of sources can count toward GNG. In most cases differences in interpretation would be moot as more obvious presence/absence of sourcing would be apparent, but in situations where the merit of a topic really does come down to two "GNG sources" existing (as happens in a lot of athlete AfDs, for example), if one of the two sources contains SIGCOV but is not independent, and the other is independent but only contains 90 words on the subject, we should be in agreement over whether either can actually contribute to GNG at all, individually or together. We should also agree on whether being listed as a recipient of a major award in an announcement issued by the awarding organization counts as "SIGCOV" for the purposes of GNG, and whether the announcement itself is actually an independent source.
Also, I brought this to AfC only because it had a big "ask us a question" button at the top of the page, at a time when I wanted uninvolved editors' input, so I figured a venue staffed by editors knowledgeable of the guidelines would be a better place than some noticeboard for this purpose. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
JoelleJay, One problem is that the definition of acce[table sources uses terms like reliable, third party, independent and substantial. All of these terms are terms of art here, with special meanings, and the ir exact meaning in a given situation is what most of the contested AfD s usually come down to. The best example I know of, is WP:NCORP, whose current version specifies sources limited to such things as initial financing were ruled unacceptable. This at least is one of our few specifications that is unambiguous to actually work--but the guideline defining it cam after many years of informally using the criterion--the actual change in our practice came first, and then the written guideline was amended to match what we were doing. Athlete is different-- an example where the basic guideline was only recently changed, in this case not due to prior practical afd decisions, but to a general consensus that our coverage was excessively wide; the exact meaning of the change will now be seen by what we do at AfD. Fortunately for me, this is not my field,, and I don't myself have to decide my own position here. In general, the only answer I can give is it depends, on such factors as the authoritativeness of the sources, the degree of reliability in this particular field, and the extent to which the ccoverage is not significance. In most other fields we have accepted that a single authoritative source showing the individual is clearly notable is sufficient, but in practice if there's one that does that we can generally find others. In some areas we are particularly stringent, such as negative BLP, and I think there's a general agreement about this. For me, part of the fun at WP is dealing with ambiguous situations and trying to make a convincing argument one way or another. Unambiguous situations don't really attract me as much; but fortunately all of us like doing different things. But as I;ve said since I started here, if we really wanted to eliminate ambiguous situations, we would abandon the GNG and decide by consensus/vote/compromise upon unambiguous measurable criteria.
And I thank you and everyone here for this very interesting discussion, quite regardless of were we have had it. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I think all of us are in agreement with the fact there is a continuum along each of the dimensions of notability, and that it's important to consider this in our analyses. But generally in my experience when a holistic approach is appropriate it's in cases where there are a good number of sources already, including at least one that everyone can agree is independent, secondary, and reliable.
Then again, since I very much identify with For me, part of the fun at WP is dealing with ambiguous situations and trying to make a convincing argument one way or another, I participate almost exclusively in contentious (STEM) academic and sportsperson AfDs -- I have very little experience with the more straightforward cases, especially in other areas. So my perception of what "matters the most" is: (for academics) in the absence of meeting other NPROF/GNG criteria, how does the person's citation profile stack up to others in their subfield? how are respected editors with real-world experience in the relevant field (like you, David, Russ, Hannes) !voting? and (for athletes) does coverage go beyond routine transactional reports and Q&A interviews? And so those are the things I look at first for every AfD, even though they might not be as applicable to less ambiguous cases. Nevertheless, typically the only point of argument (for non-NPROF) is in the significance of coverage -- I've found that differences in opinion on reliability and independence are rarely the crucial deciding factors. And out of the 1000+ AfDs I've participated in or looked at, I've never seen someone arguing that a source that everyone agrees isn't secondary/independent should still count towards GNG, which is why that position was so astounding to me and why I took it here to ask. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Bug in AFCH for renamed users

Tracked in github.com
Issue #90

I started a discussion at Template talk:AfC decline about what I assumed to be a problem in that template, causing templates to be placed on a redirect page, if the user had changed names. Turns out, it's an issue with AFCH, not the template itself. See the discussion at Template talk:AfC decline. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like this has had a bug report since 2018. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

List page at Draft:World legislative comparison that I am not sure about

I was just reviewing Draft:World legislative comparison and have no idea what to do. Everything is covered by other Wikipedia pages but it does say that it is a list page which is sort of is but I feel that we would be doing people a disservice if they went to this page rather than the specific topics. Anyway, opinions welcomed. Gusfriend (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as being a loose collection of vaguely-related topics. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Gusfriend (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

User moved Corey Loranger to mainspace after submitting it to AfC

The page Corey Loranger was submitted to AfC and then manually moved to mainspace and now has residual bits in the article. Gusfriend (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is probably allowed, per WP:DRAFTOBJECT (Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD.) and WP:COIEDIT (you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly). Notice it says "should" and not "are required to". However it is possible an NPP will see that it is COI and re-draftify it reflexively, since that is what we often do with COI. Looks like @Eagleash already took care of removing some leftover AFC templates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
It is; unless an editor is required to go through AFC it is not required. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to impose some conditions/rules against this. (Note:I am not bothering the article creator or any other editors) Fade258 (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The draft is an autobiography, do we allow the user to just move a substandard draft to mainspace? Sources include Twitter, Facebook and IMDb. Theroadislong (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Technically, yes, but if they do so they must accept the fact that it could be speedied, sent to AFD, or kicked back to the draft space. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I also found circular reference and his personal you tube channel. I don't think that we should consider this source. Fade258 (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The process here is fairly clear if you don't think they meet the criteria for inclusion then nominate it for deletion, we cannot draftify after someone has objected to it, even if that person has a COI. AFC is optional for most users. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting edge case. It is an autobiography that is only visibly an autobiography by looking at who the principal author is. There is nothing obviously wrong with it except its autobiographical nature. The unreliable sources are unobviously wrong. It illustrates that moving to draft space is not always a right or nearly right answer. It probably should be taken to AFD, but taking an article with references to AFD is the second-hardest task in Wikipedia, only writing an article with references being harder. So it hasn't been taken to AFD because that is work, and we are not paid. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Article review

hello I add Draft:DirectDL article, but it paused by past reviewers. i add some local-references on article. please review that. E V I L044 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@E V I L044 it is rejected and in usual cases will not be considered for further review by the AfC reviewers. Your account is autoconfirmed and can create or move articles now, thus is capable to shift the draft into the mainspace. However, it may be subjected to WP:CSD or WP:AfD deletions mostly immediately. The additional local-reference that you have added still does not support the notability of the browser. – robertsky (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
hello Robertsky and thanks for your review and reply. DirectDL has many local references. for example in has review in Saudi Arabia, Iran and... sources. I add that's in article, but I don't know maybe reviewers cant read that's.(because about language ) E V I L044 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@E V I L044, this page is only for discussing the AfC project's administration. If you wish to discuss your draft's rejection, please head over to the help desk. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
And yes this too. Thanks @DoubleGrazing. Got pulled away from the pc half way. – robertsky (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Marvel's Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series)

Flagging this for someone who can do a move over a redirect, and/or who might know more about why the article that's currently at this mainspace location was changed to a redirect as WP:TOOSOON in January. (At that point there were already three titles in the series, one of which was and is a FA.) There's no recent talk on Spider-Man (2018 video game) about creating this series article, but the chatter that is there suggests that there might be some contentious undercurrents...? -- asilvering (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

no "accept" button?

I did a little research on a draft, decided I'd found/added enough to prove to myself the subject was indeed notable, but when I opened the helper there's no 'Accept' button? valereee (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Because it's not submitted. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
OH. Duh. Hahahahaha! Thanks! :D valereee (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
I now crave for the cookie. I just realised that I have not had this for years. :( – robertsky (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Draftifying During AFD

I realize that this ongoing issue is less urgent than reviewing the acceptances by Hatchens, and I will be spot-checking some of those acceptances in the next few days (as, I assume, many other reviewers will be).

Sometimes when an article is moved into article space (or created in article space) by its originator, and is then nominated for AFD, the originator tries to stop the AFD by unilaterally moving it to draft space. There was discussion at Village Pump, and there was agreement that this is disruptive. I have started an RFC to add words to the AFD template saying not to move the article while the AFD is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Template talk:Article for deletion § RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello WikiProject Articles for creation,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 804 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 852 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Accepting articles

How do you accept articles that have a redirect of the same name? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18 First tag the Redirect for speedy deletion (G6), then accept after the deletion is done. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Specifically, use {{db-afc-move}}. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha thanks! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:RR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to "undo" a submission?

After submitting an article to AfC, is it possible to "undo" the submission to move the article directly to mainspace? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes? I assume you mean performing a MOVE and not a review. Primefac (talk) 07:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
On the page WP:AFC it says in the "Submitting for review" section: "Please note that getting a review can take several weeks, but that your draft will be reviewed eventually. Attempting to bypass the process by moving the page, or cutting and pasting it into a new mainspace article, may lead to the page being moved back into draftspace again, speedy-deleted or listed for AFD, and repeated attempts may even lead to you being temporarily or permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia due to disruption. In the meantime, we hope that you expand some of our already existing articles." I have submitted my draft for AfC but I have changed my mind and I want to move it directly to mainspace. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 07:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to do so, but as you have quoted, it might be moved back to draft space or AFD'd. Granted, that could happen even if it was accepted via AFC, but AFC acceptance should give at least a small indication that there is a credible notability. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Can it be moved back or AfD'd for the sole reason that I moved it to mainspace after submitting it for review but before being reviewed, even if the subject is deemed notable and the article is of decent quality? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@Crossover1370: it wouldn't be moved back to drafts or taken to AfD simply because you had bypassed the AfC process, as this is in most cases voluntary. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Hatchens

Earlier today I blocked AfC reviewer Hatchens for undisclosed paid editing. Specifically, he seems to have been accepting drafts written by other UPErs, so we're going to need to check up and clean up the articles he accepted. More details at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Hatchens. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

parsed from this on Sun 22 May 2022 17:05 UTC
Date Accepted Article Name Deleted? Redirect Notes
2022-05-18 Khilingrong Mosque Probably notable but the sources are awful; would not accept but reluctant to AfD Rusalkii (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
2022-05-14 Viplav Tripathi WP:BLP1E and POVish but event seems notable
2022-04-15 Venkat K. Reddy Checked
2022-04-14 Henry Romeyn Checked
2022-04-04 Thomas McCain Checked
2022-03-24 Vikramjit Singh Chaudhary Yes Reason - G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Deepcruze) in violation of ban or block
2022-03-24 Habib Afkari ??
2022-03-03 Structural composite supercapacitor Checked Would not have approved based on tone but marginal. Will tag article.
2022-03-03 James Gordon Shanklin Checked
2022-02-06 Kings Courtyard Inn @AfD Closed as keep
2022-01-14 Urban Water Journal Sources are not enough for GNG; would this pass NJOURNALS? Reluctant to draftify, as it's 4 months old already and has some edit history, and AfD seems OTT. Views? (Concur with prev. comment. Sometimes just leave things alone.)
2021-12-29 Stochastic logarithm Checked
2021-12-29 LAZ-4202 Does not seem to pass GNG
2021-12-22 Aswini Kumar Ghose Checked
2021-12-20 Vignelli Associates This, and the articles about the two partners, have a promotional tone to them.
2021-11-30 Nenoxites Checked
2021-09-15 Typhoon Chanthu/Kiko (2021) a redirect moved to Typhoon Chanthu (2021) needs updates but OK Checked
2021-09-12 Order of Musashi Shinobi Samurai Checked
2021-08-26 Kali Charan Chatterjee Checked needs improvement but OK
2021-08-08 Joseph W. Stern & Co. Checked a bit minimal but OK
2021-06-30 Nannie C. Burden Checked
2021-06-29 Suriya Evans-Pritchard Jayanti
2021-06-25 Landau kinetic equation Checked I'm a chemist, not a physicist.
2021-06-25 USCGC Bedloe (WSC-128) Checked
2021-06-21 Gouy-Stodola theorem Checked ok but just tagged as it is a bit technical.
2021-06-20 Ashis Marjit Checked ok
2021-06-18 3A Japanese propaganda movement Checked
2021-06-18 Dead Sea Museum Checked
2021-06-16 Dectin-2 a redirect Now CLEC6A Checked
2021-06-16 Metal-Ligand Cooperativity a redirect moved to Metal-ligand cooperativity Checked
2021-06-11 Francisco Ernesto Baralle Checked looks good
2021-06-11 Detwiler House Checked basic but ok
2021-06-10 Port Gibson High School Checked
2021-06-08 Martin Walter House Checked could do with more sources - no UPE concerns
2021-05-21 The Crimson Skull Checked borderline notability (only 1 solid source), but probs safe to stay
2021-05-17 Edwin B. Knutesen Checked
2021-05-16 Elise Plasky a redirect Checked small, but okay
2021-05-16 Edith Hester McDonald-Brown
2021-05-16 Rhynchomesostoma Checked
2021-05-10 Generalized Renewal Process a redirect Was moved to Generalized renewal process Checked
2021-05-09 Cyclone Dinah Checked
2021-05-03 Sharon Choi Checked
2021-05-01 Lester B. Pearson Civic Centre
2021-04-30 1864 Calcutta cyclone Checked
2021-04-23 Kaushik Roy
2021-04-12 Nepenthes malayensis Checked
2021-04-12 Typhoon Manny Checked
2021-04-09 Template:Rocket Lab Checked
2021-04-09 Advanced Biomedical Research Journal a redirect Checked AfD'd and turned into a redirect in early May '21
2021-03-17 Constitutional Council (Cambodia)
2021-03-16 NGC 5582 Checked Has been to AfD and survived
2021-03-15 ICGS Vishwast
2021-03-14 Iosif Gikhman
2021-03-14 Everstone Group Sourcing fails WP:ORGIND - AfD'd
2021-03-14 Teknaf Beach Checked meets WP:GEOLAND
2021-03-13 Cellular deconvolution Checked
2021-03-08 Electron-on-Helium Qubit a redirect
2021-03-08 Lawrence Vambe
2021-03-04 Manila Solar City
2021-03-02 Minnamurra River massacre Checked
2021-02-26 Houston Hogg
2021-02-23 alpha-Hydropxyetizolam Checked
2021-02-17 Indianapolis World Checked A FloridaArmy submission
2021-02-13 Charlotte Templeton
2021-02-07 Elephant Listening Project Re-Draftified, references do not discuss the organization
2021-02-06 Oaks Hotel
2021-02-06 Nikhil Kamath a redirect Redirected to Zerodha as not independently notable, now that is also at AfD
2021-02-06 Nichols House (Ponchatoula, Louisiana)
2021-02-06 Wascom House Checked minimal but OK
2021-02-01 Tensor network Checked
2021-01-22 Tauride Garden
2021-01-20 Prasun Chatterjee Yes Soft Deleted after AfD - only two opinions
2021-01-17 Hinton Laboratory Checked ok
2021-01-16 FarmWise Checked ok. Declared paid creation.
2021-01-11 Mario Guarnacci
2021-01-07 Defense industry of South Korea
2021-01-04 Newtown Elementary School Checked
2021-01-03 Rostov Kremlin
2021-01-03 Jawad Sharif Deleted, WP:CSD#G11
2021-01-03 Maalaala Mo Kaya (season 29)
2021-01-03 Wide Range Intelligence Test
2021-01-02 Simplilearn Yes Deleted after Afd Articles for deletion/Simplilearn
2021-01-01 Tatiana Rafter Checked
2020-12-31 I. M. Kadri Checked
2020-12-28 Sogou Baike Checked Re-draftified in Dec 2020 Draft:Sogou Baike
2020-12-21 Indranil Sen Yes Checked Deleted and salted, WP:CSD#G5
2020-11-29 Miacomet Golf Course
2020-11-27 Xile Hu Checked Declared paid creation. Not great but probably notable.
2020-11-27 Sandbanks Provincial Park (Newfoundland) Checked meets WP:GEOLAND, sources quite bare, but more coverage exists
2020-11-23 David H. Staelin Checked
2020-11-22 Tom Brown (mathematician) Checked Poorly sourced BLP, but notable
2020-10-26 Clark Baldwin Yes Checked Returned to Draft:Clark Baldwin then G10
2020-10-18 James H. Reid Checked
2020-10-18 Buraku-ji Yes Checked Returned to Draft:Buraku-ji then G13
2020-10-15 Jade Bahr (politician) a redirect Checked Moved to Jade Bahr
2020-10-13 American Epilepsy Society Checked Draftified and undraftified, now tagged with {{UPE}}

KylieTastic (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Just noting that many of the redirects are the result of page moves (so the content is still present in the redirect target), rather than WP:BLARs. DanCherek (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Yup, I need to smarten up my code to look deeper at some point, but not tonight :) KylieTastic (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This is bad. I will spot-check some of the accepted articles (as, I am sure, will other reviewers). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What does {{Accepted}} in the Notes column mean? Does that mean that another reviewer has reviewed the draft and agrees that it should be in article space? If not, what does it mean? I have checked a few of the articles. If I have concerns either about the language or about notability, I have tagged some of them. Is that a reasonable interim practice? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert McClenon that was me for the few I spot checked... I changed to {{Checked2}} KylieTastic (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Some of these articles were authored by FloridaArmy. I would have accepted them if I had been the reviewer, and we have reason to believe that there was no payment. How can we mark them? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
In my case also, I would have accept the article created by Florida Army because I believe that there is no any paid contribution for their creations. Fade258 (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
May other reviewers update the Notes column? McClenon mobile (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I wont update someone elses post unless I know it is welcome. McClenon mobile (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes McClenon mobile feel free to update. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I would normally be all over this like a rash, but I consider Hatchens to be a friend, and my good faith, while shaken, is not broken, thus I feel it would be unfair to them for me to participate. I would not wish for any considerations of bias to creep into the analysis of their work.
The results so far appear to show the normal error rate we would anticipate for the grey area that is a borderline acceptance. I await the final outcome with interest. I see there is a good way to go. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree Timtrent I see nothing in the results so far to cause concern as far as UPE, nor in the other on-wiki edits, in fact it shows them as proactive anti UPEs. It does make me wonder how sound the CU evidence is or if it could just be coincidental. Unfortunately as all the evidence is private we just have to trust the few with access to judge fairly. KylieTastic (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    @KylieTastic we cannot speculate on the off wiki evidence. I am interested and somewhat concerned that this appeared almost at the same time as the identification by Hatchens of a large UPE ring. The timing is unlikely to be a coincidence. I, too, have to trust those we delegate the task of looking at evidence to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Timtrent and KylieTastic: I mean, I think the off-wiki evidence is convincing, as does MER-C (who is not a CU so has only seen a subset of it). I'm not infallible but, as I've told him, Hatchens is welcome to appeal to another CheckUser or ArbCom for a second opinion, and as far as I know he hasn't done so. But do bear in mind that UPErs, or at least the savvier ones, bury their paid edits in amongst good ones. Of the specific articles/edits that led to the block, not all were related to AfC, and several were deleted before this even came to light. So it's not surprising that only a minority of the articles listed here have issues. However, we can't know how many, so we have to check them all – one more reason why UPE is so disruptive and disrespectful of other editor's time. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Joe Roe Since I cannot be privy to the evidence all I am able to do is state only what I am able to observe. Were I privileged to see the evidence, something I do not wish to be, I would be able to form a better opinion. I am grateful for the response. Thank you. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • After seeing two "Declared paid creation"s added to the notes above I looked into them and I have to admit I've been totally ignorant that such editors exist with huge lists of paid creations! I would have never thought to look for declarations on a user page anyway, and certainly in the case of Bbarmadillo not scroll down to the bottom of a long page. Also I tend to sort out the talk page after acceptance so would often miss that notice. So I was wondering in the same way that the AFHC tool flags in their were previous deletions would it be a good idea for it to flag if {{Connected contributor (paid)}} is on the submission talk page? KylieTastic (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    For the record, Bbarmadillo seems to follow our guidelines for paid editors assiduously and I doubt he has anything to do with Hatchens. That one's just a coincidence. – Joe (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm going to ask the dumb question (and split this into its own section), but if a draft is acceptable, does it matter if it was created for pay? I personally don't see a need to check the page creator to see if they were paid to write an acceptable draft. Primefac (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    I think it matters because, if you know you're reading an article that was paid for, you should look closer for things that you might otherwise take on good faith: are the sources used to establish notability really independent? Are primary sources used appropriately? Is all the text free of peacock prose? And above all, is the article a balanced summary of the available sources? The major problem with commissioned articles, and the reason I've never thought the "just treat them like anything else" argument made sense, is that paid editors are often capable of writing well-formatted prose, and occasionally manage to avoid promotion and marketing-speak, but the thing they never, ever do, for obvious reasons, is incorporate sources critical of their employer. The result is subtle POV-pushing that is very difficult to pin down without doing your own independent research. It's more difficult to fix these articles than it is to write them, which has left most of our coverage of companies reading like corporate brochures. Obviously it's not reasonable to expect AfC reviewers to do that, but they can at least look for the tell-tale signs and tag appropriately.
    Also, some people (like me) might prefer not to review drafts from paid editors, because they don't like volunteering their time to help someone else get a paycheck. I think you can usually spot commissioned drafts a mile away, but it would be useful if AFCH could explicitly flag it. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    Regarding that last point, I don't think it's possible - there is no mandatory method of disclosing, so AFCH would somehow have to search a user page for "paid" or some other keyword, and even if that were possible (which I don't think it is, though I could be wrong) it would likely lead to a lot of false positives and false negatives. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    I imagine looking for {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the talk page or {{paid}} on the creator's user page would catch 99% of disclosed paid creations. – Joe (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    In theory Primefac no it should not, but in practice it is much more likely that the article is biased. Our judgement here allows a scope of good faith and we mostly judge a topic is notable, but for paid editing I would expect every claim to be properly sourced. Again in agreement with Joe, I have no desire to spend my time for others to get paid when there are thousands of other non paid submitters who need our help. Being paid is a huge COI and I doubt many who pay are happy to accept inclusion of any negative coverage at all, so however well meaning the paid submitter is we have bias/neutrality issues. Lastly if it doesn't matter at all if an acceptable draft was created for pay then why care if disclosed at all? We care about UPE because we should judge all paid work as possibly biased. KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough; I don't necessarily have any specific retort or counter-argument here, just trying to better understand how others manage their reviewing workflow. Primefac (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Primefac With regard to my own workflow, I do not make a decision not to review a (declared) paid or UPE draft, but I do hold it to a higher standard than submissions from amateur editors. I have a firm belief that a paid editor should not trouble my intellect and that they should be capable automatically of creating a draft which passes first time every time.
    What I do not do is tutor, or provide more than cursory help to the declared paid editor. UPE I try to root out. In each case I believe that they are paid to know how to create correct drafts, and I have no interest in helping them to improve their skills. I don't mind that the good ones are paid. The bad ones may never get paid. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 16:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How to ask

How do I suggest an article for which I am not qualified to write? I was looking for information on Camila Detomi. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:8886:B13C:685D:68D5 (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll go there, but I have another question. When I typed in the person's name, why did I get this message:
"The page "Camila Detomi" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. which brings me here rather than to the page you gave? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:8886:B13C:685D:68D5 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Where are you seeing this notice? There a few pages which give notices like this, but I'm not seeing one that points someone here to ask for a page to be created (everything correctly points to WP:RA). Primefac (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
It shows up when you type 'Camila Detomi' in the search bar if your account is not autoconfirmed. (Autoconfirmed people see "You may create the page "Camila Detomi". instead). Femke (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, interesting. Unfortunately I can never remember the location of all these MediaWiki-space pages, but I'll ping someone who does who can potentially put in a fix. Primefac (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Primefac it's here MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new-nocreate. KylieTastic (talk) 12:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Courtesy ping to Ahecht who was involved in the most recent set of changes to this template (though I do note the change didn't point it away from AFC). Primefac (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac This change was already proposed by ToBeFree back in 2019 at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate but the change was rejected by xaosflux after a comment by Þjarkur. If we're going to try to build consensus for a change, I'd rather change the wording than the link, as WP:RA is pretty much dead. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Just a note, on most non-article related edit requests if someone asks for it I normally assume it is ok per WP:BOLD, but if someone challenges it or thinks it should be something else I normally assume it is now at stage 3 of WP:BRD - that way we aren't breaking things on things like system messages or big templates. If this or another discussion comes up with some agreement either some admin will do it, or feel free to link to it on an edit request and a patrolling admin should have no issue. — xaosflux Talk 11:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Primefac, see Special:AllMessages and – in case the message is currently visible on your screen – try appending "&uselang=qqx" (or "?uselang=qqx" if the current URL contains no question mark) to the current URL in the address bar. 🪄 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've proposed a new link and wording here. Feel free to chime in. Maybe we can reach a consensus and improve the wording :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  • FYI: The only interesting items for Camila Detomi that come up in a quick Google search are within the last week. My suggestion would be to wait for a couple of months to see if any additional article pop up.Gusfriend (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Rejection removed content

Tracked in github.com
Issue #234

Any idea why this might have happened? I rejected a draft, and at the same time some of the content (a short para, incorrectly formatted as a level 2 heading) vanished. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I created a bug report for ya. I have some theories, I mentioned them in the ticket. Nothing too exciting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hans-Christoph Pape

I had to rewrite this a bit to make it acceptable, I hope. I was wondering if somebody could review it, if they have time. There is still a couple of bare urls on it and the comittee section is a bit a ropey, but its much better than it was. It in on my todo list, so I'm hoping to get rid soon. He is the only individual I've seen where the h-index value has went up 2 points since I been editing the article over the last week or so. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 16:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Draft:Daniel Slatkin

Hi all, I recently received an e-mail from Daplusl asking for assistance with getting this draft approved. (apparently because I created the article on the subject's grandmother Eleanor Aller). In looking at the draft, it seems like the issues with inline citations have been addressed. I think this is ready for the main space, but as I am not a reviewer I cannot approve the article. I'm not familiar with AFC protocol as I started editing long before AFC was created. Could a reviewer please re-review this? Perhaps, Robertsky (who declined the draft) could take a look at it again. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If you're sure it's ready and you are OK with taking responsibility for it, feel free to just move it to mainspace and remove the AFC templates. That's allowed, AFC is optional. FYI, you have autopatrolled so moving it will also autopatrol it. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do.4meter4 (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@4meter4 you are welcome to join the ranks of AfC reviewers as well. :) Thanks for following up. – robertsky (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

AfC reviewers accepting articles without sources

The totally unsourced article List of bays of France was accepted by AfC reviewer Gusfriend. If they do it again permissions should be revoked since SAL is no exception to verifiability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 23:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe I don't think list articles need sources. 331dot (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
331dot Yes they do. From WP:LISTVERIFY: "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned on my talk page, I have seen a number of list pages without citations, generally those that act purely as navigation pages, and had assumed that that was the community consensus and will stay away from approving list pages for a while.
I would like to note, however, that the WP:Inline citation page, which I got to by following the WP:LISTVERIFY link that you gave, I read the following text:
Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references. For all other types of material, the policies require only that it be possible for a motivated, educated person to find published, reliable sources that support the material, e.g., by searching for sources online or at a library. However, it is rare for articles past the stub stage to contain none of these four types of material.
and would argue that a list of the bays of France which includes links to Wikipedia pages with their own references as well as geographic locations does not contain content of the 4 types mentioned and meets the requirement that it is possible for someone to easily find sources for themselves. Gusfriend (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Gusfriend WP:Inline citation is neither a policy nor a guideline, which means it may or may not reflect consensus. In contrast, other pages that demand sourcing for all Wikipedia content where it appears (either inline reference, general reference or other means as appropriate) are policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 05:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe: aside from the one list article you mention, are you aware of many other instances of reviewers accepting articles without sources? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I think most AfC reviewers are good about this, but it's important to ensure quality reviewing. (t · c) buidhe 07:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
In any event I think a removal of permissions is not called for here. 331dot (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Although I am very fond of proper sources, I think that this particular SAL doesn't require a huge number of citations per WP:SKYBLUE. The reason why I think this applies here is because the SAL includes coordinates which sort-of act like "evidence" or "proof" if you will – everything is obvious, and by simply browsing Google Maps, one can easily see that the SAL is not made out of thin air. So I'd agree with 331dot in this case. However, in general, I think that AfC reviewers should not accept unreferenced articles. This is clearly an exception. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with User:331dot. Please, User:Buidhe, assume good faith on the part of the reviewers. Even if accepting the article was a mistake, not every mistake by a reviewer requires that their permission be revoked. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
First off, it is wrong to claim that this list is uncited; It has map links which can be considered form of referencing. Second, this list is WP:UNLIKELY to be deleted at WP:AFD and that's our big-picture acceptance criteria here at AfC. Third, better to first ask questions than make accusations against your fellow editors. ~Kvng (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Lynn Dalgarno

I initially declined this draft, which User:DGG had said needed completion. However, I then checked that the originator of the draft hasn't edited in two years, and so isn't about to improve the draft. At the same time, although it needs expansion, it does contain enough information to establish academic notability. So I resubmitted it and have accepted it, so that it can be improved in article space instead, and is more likely to be improved there than in draft space. Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Last night I did the same for 2 articles tagged promising draft as they needed work but had enough sourcing to meet notability. Better for larger community to improve or AfD the article instead of slow death by G13.Slywriter (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It's honestly somewhat appalling that we didn't have an article on one of the co-discoverers of the Shine–Dalgarno sequence. That's...a massive discovery in biology. You cover it in literally every biology class discussing transcription and translation. SilverserenC 00:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
She was a re-direct to her work, but yes there are still holes in an encyclopedia of 6 million articles.Slywriter (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, please accept incomplete and flawed drafts on notable subjects. WP:STUBIFY if it is a total disaster. AfC authors often don't have the ability to make the necessary improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Error Accepting Draft

I'm trying to accept Draft:4 Season Project 季 now that it's ready, but there seems to be an error moving it into the mainspace. When using the helper script, it says "titleblacklist-forbidden-move", which doesn't make sense as it isn't forbidden from being created, and when I try to manually move it, it says there is an entry that matches that name, even though there isn't. I tried moving the draft to a different name before accepting, but that doesn't work at all. Help? Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like hanja characters (in this case, 季) are on the title blacklist. Probably to force folks to comply with Wikipedia:Article titles#English-language titles, which says that article titles are written using the English language. One solution would be to rename the article to not use hanja, then run the AFC accept script. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Striking some of the above. I was able to create the article 季, so the characters individually are not on the title blacklist. There's a blacklist section called "POTENTIALLY CONFUSING MIXED-SCRIPT TITLES" though. But I think we need a blacklist expert to weigh in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
After talking with Cryptic, we decided to rename the article to Draft:Love Story (Kyuhyun album). Try accepting it now. I think the AFC script should work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Good call – that's exactly what I was going to suggest, but you beat me to it. (I think this is the "DISALLOW PAGE MOVES TO MIXED-SCRIPT TITLES", which prohibits moves to titles with both Latin and non-Latin titles: it's "Intentionally move-only due to false positives", so that's why you can still create the article.) As a sidenote, if anyone ever does have a good reason for overriding the title blacklist, feel free to put in a request at WP:RM/TR. Any of us page movers can take care of it, so you'll usually get a quick response. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
It worked! Thank you all for being helpful! Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Splitting up AfC categories by type

I was just wondering if it would be useful for anyone other than me if the AfC age based categories were then split into biography and everything else which would make it easier for those moments when you see one bio after another and want an Amuse-bouche of several non bio articles to review. From a practical (for other people) point of view it would also give us category that could be added to the WP:BIOG (i.e. WikiProject Biography) area. As always please feel free to tell me that it is a bad idea brought on by seeing too many biographies in a row needing to be declined. Gusfriend (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a bad idea to me. In my opinion, It is not necessary to split up because almost 95% of the submission were about biography of living persons. Well, We have to listen from other AFC reviewers or any other experienced editors. Thank you. Fade258 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gusfriend There exist Category:Drafts about people and Category:AfC submissions on living persons. You can use either as a filter, eg. search for incategory:"Pending AfC submissions" -incategory:"AfC submissions on living persons" – SD0001 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

X people in Y country

Stumbled on Draft:Mozambicans in Portugal. Noticed there is already a Mozambicans in the United Kingdom page live.

What are the guidelines for approaching such drafts? Does an encyclopedia really need all the possible combinations of "X people in Y country", even when the X is a miniscule representation of the general population? nearlyevil665 09:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've prodded Mozambicans in the United Kingdom; we don't need these articles unless there is significant coverage of the group in the context of the country. For example, British Indians. BilledMammal (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if there's a guideline per se, but at the very least you'd expect to see encyclopaedic value of some sort, as well as solid referencing. This draft certainly fails on the latter count, and possibly on the former, too. And as for the 'notable people' section, that probably could be just as easily handled via cats like Category:Portuguese people of Mozambican descent. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for the comments. Makes sense to me. I will decline. nearlyevil665 13:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
When I see stuff like this on WP:PRODPATROL I often find a suitable merge or redirect target as an WP:ATD. These titles are plausible search terms so redirects are justified. If there's not much motivating a standalone article, consider looking for a related article and suggesting the author improve that with their draft material (keeping WP:UNDUE in mind). ~Kvng (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Should I outright reject this or give it more time

Draft:Marraban Yauri gold mining makes not even the slightest sense, headers are capitalized, and a lot more citations are needed. Should I reject it or give it time? Thanks! Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 23:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Haiiya maybe suggest the editor to edit directly on Gold mining and integrate what they can into there? – robertsky (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
When in doubt, declining is safe and easy. I almost never reject. Also, that draft appears to have a couple paragraphs of copyvio. It's good to run the Earwig tool on drafts, even if you plan to decline them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, WP:CV check is the first step in review workflow. The copyright police don't like copyrighted material hanging out on Wikipedia, even in Draft: space. ~Kvng (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Blank" pages

Hello, AFC folks,

I look at a lot of expiring drafts every day and I'm seeing quite a few, mostly sandboxes, rejected for being blank pages. However, if you look at the page history, it's clear that the draft creator added content besides the AFC submission code. In the case I just looked at, they pasted an article's worth of content on the page. Unfortunately, they added it under a line of code that says "<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS " that has the effect of making the content invisible as it is meant to hide comments. So, please, if you come across a blank draft, take a second and look at the page history to see if content has been added and it just appears to be a blank page. It would only take a second to delete the comment code and then you can judge what the editor actually wrote. Thanks for all of the work you do every day! Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Liz thanks for highlighting this. – robertsky (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Liz, very helpful! Since you flagged this up, I've come across several. Wouldn't have even occurred to me... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions without a section is ?broken?

There is always one more member than is actually in it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced Draft Autobiographies

This question is mostly about the handling of unsourced draft autobiographies, and of unsourced draft BLPs that can be presumed to be autobiographies. But first, I will say that I think unsourced draft BLPs fall into three main classes: good-faith newbie submissions; negative draft BLPs; and positive draft BLPs, most of which are or appear to be autobiographies. The good-faith submissions should be declined with 'ilc' and probably with 'bio'. The originator should be given time to source them. The negative ones can be tagged as G10 (or G3) or sent to MFD. My question is about the unsourced draft BLPs that appear to be autobiographies. Does anyone have any general advice as to when they should be declined, when they should be rejected, and when they should be sent to MFD? A few of them should be tagged as G11, and if they contain any clear lies, they can be tagged as G3. But what do other editors think are good rules for when they should be declined, rejected, or sent to MFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue that any unsourced BLPs should be declined with bio and ilc, even if it is warranted to assume that they are autobiographies. Most people writing about themselves are not particularly good at it… Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Diego Conti

Hi, what is the process again when an editor copies an unready article to mainspace, leaving the original in draft. I asked this before but its went in one ear and out the other. I should know, but don't. The article is woeful. scope_creepTalk 15:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep One might consider a history merge request unless the mainspace article is awful, then AfD beckons 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
User:scope creep, User:Timtrent - I have been advised that if an editor copy-pastes an unready article from draft to article space, the article can be redirected back to the draft. Then guess what? Then the redirect is a cross-namespace redirect that can be tagged for R2. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
That, too, makes sense 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Robert McClenon: I'll remember that the next time. It makes sense and I like the sound of that, as well. With a bit of luck it will stop some abusive behaviour. I see another reviewer has posted it to the Afd queue, in the meantime, so the question is moot. scope_creepTalk 13:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Scandal of 1933

The article Scandal of 1933 was declined 3 times (twice by me) and then re-reviewed and accepted. I believe this article fails to meet WP criteria and should be reconsidered as not acceptable for mainspace due to a lack or notability references. --mikeu talk 00:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So take it to AFD. That is the proper course of action. I felt it was notable, so I accepted it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention there are several in depth reviews and discussions in newspapers of the subject. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Also consider letting authors get a second opinion from a different reviewer when they resubmit their drafts. I personally never review a draft more than once unless the author convinces me I've made a mistake. ~Kvng (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if this matters, but 4 sources are highlighted yellow by the reliable sources gadget. Haiiya (talk) (contribs) 23:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Links to Google Books are always highlighted in yellow, so no, that on its own doesn't mean anything. DanCherek (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Quarry issues due to large replag

Just a note for anyone using Quarry and having odd results - It's because it's currently 52 hours lagged see replag.toolforge.org. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Notability decline messages

A while ago, there was a Village Pump discussion about the decline message for notability. While there was strong support for the last version, this hasn't been implemented yet. The wording would be (including User:AssumeGoodWraith's tweak):

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

If there are no objections here, could a template editor implement this at Template:AfC_submission/comments?

SNG specific decline messages

These could be implemented downstream too. Mostly just a copy-paste, but for companies I think the standard text doesn't capture the stricter spirit of NCORP. Something like

corp

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I've removed the explicit mention of a separate notability guideline to save on words here. Instead, I've retargeted the links about notability, depth and independence to NCORP.

I think the academic one also needs a rewrite, as a majority (or at least significant fraction) of academics meeting WP:NPROF doesn't meet WP:GNG. Femke (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

academic

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

I've made explicit that WP:NPROF is an alternative to WP:GNG, also by changing the last bit of wording. I hope this addressed the concern that our decline messages are too strict for subjects where SNGs exist. Still thinking about the wording where SNG are not on equal footing to GNG, and just give presumed notability. Of course, for new editors that difference doesn't matter. Femke (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

General discussion

I made an edit request a while ago, which was declined for “no clear consensus” or something along those lines. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that edit request. I do read a consensus in that discussion to change the nn decline message. Seven people supported the bullet list proposal, while four did not explicitly support. Of those four, 2 wanted to make sure that the other decline messages would still mention SNG or would even make SNGs more explicit. The other two objected to parts of the text where the proposal and the status quo are the same (namely making it more clear the decline is just one person's opinion / temporary).
@Headbomb: Is it possible you overlooked some of the non-bolded supports? If not, could you shed some more light on your conclusion? What do you see as the best way forward? Maybe we could ask for a close on WP:CR. Alternatively, I could first create a set of proposals for the decline messages which mention SNGs, and engage specifically with those who mentioned this under the discussion for the general decline message. Femke (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:SECONDARY is mentioned as a should (recommendation) in WP:GNG. Here we're listing it as a shall (requirement). This means we're slightly overstating the requirements. Maybe not a big deal but if we remove WP:SECONDARY we'd have a more focused list and will be right in line with WP:42. ~Kvng (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmm.. I had never noticed that. Was wondering why there were only 3 criteria in WP:42. Most sources that fit in the other three categories would be secondary too, so I'm open to deleting it. For the company specific decline message, it should stay (per Wikipedia:SIRS). Femke (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
First I'm noticing it too. I'd be in favor of keeping the secondary bullet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
AfC does have a reputation as being a gauntlet. Keeping the longer list is consistent with that. ~Kvng (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I've asked for a formal closure of the previous discussion.
@Kvng: I very much agree we need to get our acceptance rate up. I think one of the important ways to do this is to set appropriate expectations to new editors, so we don't waste their time. I can't really think of a non-secondary source used succesfully in an AfD discussion to meet GNG. (They can be used to meet SNGs, which will hopefully be stressed more if these proposals gain consensus). Can you give an example? Femke (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
The general example is an author with limited research skills producing a draft on a notable topic. If AfC reviewers are encouraged to decline drafts with non-impeccable sourcing, these drafts will generally find their way to G13. If reviewers are brave enough to accept the imperfect, it is unlikely they will be deleted and they would presumably be improved. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
But equally, even at its best, GNG only creates a presumption of notability. One might argue that referencing with primary-only sources defeats that presumption. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Searchmenu-new-nocreate § Propose link and wording change. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Promotion to active reviewer status?

Hello, I was appointed a probationary reviewer in July 2021. I have since undertaken some 260+ reviews. I appreciate there would be a backlog in the list to promote probationary reviewers but just wanted to touch base to see if/when that is likely to occur? With thanks for all you do. Cabrils (talk) 01:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Cabrils, not sure if resolved, but reaching out to the admin who granted probationary status may be easiest way. Slywriter (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, will do as you suggest. Cabrils (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club

I declined this almost a year ago, and it's been on my watch list since, so I keep getting notifications of new edits. It seems the author isn't particularly keen to resubmit this, or even addressing the decline reason (lack of notability); they just keep updating the stats, and maybe they're happy for us to host this as an internal tool for the club's own use or something. And because they edit this frequently, it never goes stale, and could just end up sitting there in the drafts ad infinitum. Should I just ignore it, or finally move for deletion? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I have boldly removed most of the tables of data. We are not a permanent repository of trivial content like this. Theroadislong (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
DoubleGrazing I have suggested deletion here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club. Theroadislong (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing, @Theroadislong, it is not likely to be deleted at MfD however reasonable the suggestion. When folk see the draft namespace they give an almost automatic Keep !vote.
I suppose one might be Machiavellian and IAR submit it, accept it and send it to AfD, but it would likely be returned to Draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, you may be right. Thanks for adding your !vote anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theroadislong and Timtrent: so, this has been resubmitted. If it now gets declined again, as it should for lack of notability and scarce referencing, we're back to where this started from. Accepting and moving for AfD seems indeed Macchiavellian, plus AfD is busy enough as it is, without another snowball. Thoughts? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I'll leave this for other fresher eyes at AFC, at least we are making progress in that it has been submitted. Theroadislong (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@DoubleGrazing @Theroadislong I have not declined it, tempting as that might be. I have left a helpful comment, though 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Benedicto Crespo-Facorro

Hi Folks, came across this draft article and saved it as it marked for death. The previous article was shockingly bad. The guy is a veritable giant in a human body. If anybody has some spare, can you please review it please. It does needs one more reference, but it is pretty complete. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 13:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scope creep Accepted with pleasure. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Arrgghhhh. I have now spent some time in the deep and dark rabbit hole that is Wikidata, trying to flesh out this person's entry. That is time I all never get back! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Two redirects created for block-evading user

Baggaet (pinged) has created Australian rules football in Egypt and Australian rules football in Lithuania for an IP who had been blocked for 48 hours for block evasion. The IP's other requests were rejected by another reviewer. I left the two redirects intact because they are constructive. However, should I have G5'ed them instead? Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@NotReallySoroka Pragmatism usually wins the day here. Your actions are pragmatic 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Timtrent, as in leaving them alone? NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@NotReallySoroka I hadn't meant to be ambiguous, my apologies. Yes, as in leaving them alone. An admin might choose to extend the block or reblock for further block evasion, so you might choose to alert the blocking admin, but I think that is all I would have done in the same circumstances. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@NotReallySoroka I have forgotten how I acquired the ability to see global locks. It is remarkably useful. I think I was guided to it by someone who knows! 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it was the user script User:GeneralNotability/mark-locked.js. That's the one I use. Great tool. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
That was the one 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:44, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@NotReallySoroka I see that the editor is globally locked rather than simply blocked. That creates a slightly different perspective. @Bbb23:, you may wish to examine this? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Baggaet: I would like to specifically note that I assume good faith for your actions, such as reviewing the two redirects. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
NotReallySoroka, I would like to add that at the time I accepted those requests, those weren't rejected or put on hold by another reviewer. They seemed constructive and useful redirects to me. However, I'd be careful from now. Thanks. --Baggaet (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Baggaet Whatever we do we cannot ever find all the external things that affect articles, redirects etc. I think you have no need to be any more careful than you are. Over time we all gain extra awareness. Sometimes that is counter-productive. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Global Lock Questions

Since a global lock is mentioned, I would like to clarify my understanding of global locks. I understand that a global lock is a sort of super-block by a steward that is normally imposed due to cross-wiki abuse. So if an editor has already been blocked on, say, German Wikipedia and Commons, a steward can globally lock them, in which case they are also blocked on English Wikipedia. Likewise, if user ZYX has been banned (and blocked) on ENWP and blocked on Commons, and is globally locked by a steward, they are locked out of Simple English and Wiktionary and French Wikipedia. Is that basically a correct understanding? Can an account be globally locked if that account has only abused one wiki, but is a sockpuppet of another globally locked cross-wiki abuser? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm not sure about the question in the last sentence, but the rest of that sounds correct. More info at Wikipedia:Global actions#Global locks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

About Iran–Pakistan border barrier

I had been asked to create Iran–Pakistan border barrier as a redirect to Iran–Pakistan border which I have initially done. However, I soon retargeted the barrier redirect to Iran–Pakistan border#Border barriers. Should I revert my retargeting? Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a dumb question, but am I correct that you are asking whether editing a redirect to be more specific is a bad thing? Primefac (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

GA Draft class, AFC review update?

Hello, an article I wrote for Draft:OBJECT:PARADISE was granted GA draft class from from user:Dan arndt nearly two months ago, and I am just wondering if there may be some issue with the next steps for AFC? The article is unsorted--could this cause an issue?

Many thanks in advance for the work that everyone does here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tykosay (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. I think that is just an estimate by a computer of how big the draft is. Drafts cannot be good articles, good articles go through a different review process. Sorry for the delay in reviewing your draft, we have a bit of a backlog. There are people that work the back of the queue though so it will get reviewed eventually. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay great. Thank you, Novem Linguae! Tykosay (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Archive_50&oldid=1109731850"