Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

3+ months

2,387 pending submissions to update

• Are you in the right place?
  • If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the AfC Help desk.
  • For questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia, use the Teahouse.
  • Create an article using Article wizard or request an article at requested articles.
• Put new text under old text. Start a new topic.
• In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the AFCH helper script by creating a new ticket on GitHub.
• New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of March 31, 2025

Discussion at WP:VPI § Adding a TLDR section for AFC submissions

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPI § Adding a TLDR section for AFC submissions, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sohom (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

ilc decline

Just a gentle note/reminder to reviewers that ilc as a decline, by itself, should be used exceedingly rarely. I have seen it now multiple times in the last few days, one of which I outright reverted because there were two unsourced sentences. I know that BLPs require sources and proper referencing, but unless it's a huge draft with no inline citations (i.e. it's not trivial to match source to content) ilc should be used sparingly, or in combination with other "bigger" decline reasons. Primefac (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

WikiProject templates.json

Hi there! I have a quick concern regarding the WikiProjects listed at WikiProject templates.json. At present, this list includes WP:Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe, which appears to be creating redlinked templates. WP:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe exists, but it seems that the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America template has a checkbox for Anishinaabe. I hope that's clear. Let me know if you have any follow questions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade, If there is a project listed that is incorrect you need to edit (or file an edit request) to add it to the blocklist in the config Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json/config.json. Then the bot will remove it next run. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks, KylieTastic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Medtronic

Product Name/ Model No. med. LAD M721123B001 Rev 1B 3576 Unocal Place Santa Rosa. CA> 95405 USA 2601:5C3:300:9D0:ED26:C24C:4A81:1C25 (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, this is not the correct place to submit new drafts. For that purpose, follow the steps listed at WP:AfC. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Draft:House of Roche

Anyone interested in reviewing Draft:House of Roche? It's sat in the draft space, possibly abandoned, for a few months, until an IP came and submitted it. Guliolopez has been wrangling with it, discovering a lot of silly claims and bogus sources, and seems to think it a hoax; I tend to agree. G3 speedy was declined, though, and probably rightly so, because it's not entirely obvious. Could indeed be an elaborate hoax, could also be AI-generated pile of hallucinated garbage but with a modicum of truth mixed in, could be fish, could be fowl. Either way, with 70K bytes (down from 93K!) and 100 cites, there's a lot to sift through to get to the bottom of it! -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @DoubleGrazing. I've gone through the sources. And removed the most obvious nonsense. Including that which sought to connect the named family to characters The Matrix movies, King Arthur, Mary Magdalene, etc. (where the "sources" used did not come even remotely close to supporting the text. Like this article in the "Film-Philosophy" journal which doesn't even mention the fictional character named in the section - not to mind the Roche family or its supposed lines of ancestry.)

Same goes for the bizarre claim that "United Nations [..] support aids in ensuring that [..the cultural history of..] the House of Roche, remains preserved, respected, and understood on a global level". When there are no sources at all (and certainly not the page of the book linked in that section) to support this OR/SYNTH nonsense.

The content in the sections towards the end (which appear to cover members of the "House of Roche" in the 13th to 20th centuries) is very clearly the output of a ChatGPT/LLM prompt. It couldn't be more obvious if was labelled as such.

Anyway - Yes, there were several "landed" families in Ireland named Roche. Of Norman descent. As covered in the Roche (surname) and Roche baronets and Roche family articles/cats. However, the text of the proposed draft (which seeks to tie them all together and connect them with everyone from Mary Magdalene through to the Wachowskis) is almost all just LLM-generated nonsense. Much of which copies/pastes/replicates content from other articles on people who happen to be named "Roche".

I was planning to open an WP:MFD thread (so that mine would be the only time wasted, and members of the AfC community wouldn't also spend time reviewing such a silly draft). But I didn't get around to it yesterday....

Suffice to say that, at best, that draft is beyond fixing and, if such a title is to be created, it would be better to do so from scratch. Guliolopez (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Israel Palestine drafts discussion

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#What are the rules on article creation through AfC for Israel/Palestine articles? goes over the rules for accepting drafts about Israel Palestine by editors with less than 500 edits, and may be good to learn more about. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Bluey (TV series)

I think I know the answer, but I will ask to see if anyone has any other comments. I declined Draft:Bluey series 1 and Draft:Bluey series 3 because they are portions of List of Bluey episodes, and said that there should be discussion at Talk:List of Bluey episodes about whether to split the list of episodes into articles for each series. I said that there had been discussion, but that there had not been consensus to split, or to create sub-articles. I also advised the requesting IP that it is difficult to communicate with a shifting IP address, and that they should register an account. Does anyone have anything to add or subtract? The IP has now asked me: When will there be consensus that separate season pages of Bluey are needed?. I think that I should suggest that they read the guideline on consensus. Do other editors here agree that I can reasonably decline the season articles until there is some sort of discussion and rough consensus? Do other editors here agree that in this case silence at the talk page is not consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:TV has some really specific guidelines about this so you should cross-post there to get their opinion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Primefac - You have also provided guidance on a question that I wasn't asking, which has to do with a dispute at DRN about the formatting of a table listing episodes of a TV series. I have posted queries to the television project about both matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Deny potentially CTOP enforcement-violating material and nominate it for G5 speedy deletion?

I initially came across Draft:Higher Education Scholarships for Palestinians, thought nothing of it and moved on. However, when the article got draftified and was re-submitted at AfC, I took a second look and found out that the page creator isn't EC. Should I, as proposed above, deny the submission and nominate it for speedy deletion? — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Under what criteria? This seems entirely related to Palestine and education; PIA is not "anything related to Palestine" it is "anything related to the Arab/Israel conflict". Primefac (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Primefac, makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/it/other neos • talk • edits) 23:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about move protecting articles at AfD

FYI

 – Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Move_protection_for_articles_at_AfD

Thought folks here may be interesrested in the above, which I started and please feel free to fix this formatting, I got stuck in templates Star Mississippi 14:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Extended-confirmed restriction as an AfC decline reason?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Extended-confirmed restriction as an AfC decline reason?, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

This talk page might be a better spot for this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I put it at VPI as I still felt it should be workshopped rather than discussed as a finished proposal, but it can go here too! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 – Per request here, more appropriate venue.

I've recently declined Draft:The Special Operations Division (Mem-Mem) at Wikipedia:Articles for creation, and I realized that there isn't yet a decline reason for "this topic is under an extended-confirmed restriction". Since it's been recently made explicit that drafts in relevant contentious topics did also fall under EC restrictions, should there be one? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose adding one, but there's also the "EC'd users may take responsibility for publishing an article/edits under the EC restriction" thing which reviewers could use to accept such drafts, if that's the only reason preventing things. One could accept and immediately move for EC protection. The EC restriction is to prevent clueless editors from voluminous disruption, and if a draft is good enough to be accepted and run under the EC'd scrutiny of a reviewer, methinks it should be accepted. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I think if a reviewer is willing to accept responsibility for the draft, they can do so; declining a draft purely because the creator isn't ExCon is not something I would support. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

True, I'm not saying drafts should be declined purely for this reason. But there is definitely a category of drafts that would not be endorsed by an EC editor in part due to the higher standards in CTOPs, but yet might not directly fall under one of the other decline criteria, which is where pointing out the EC restriction might be a good thing.

I see a lot of drafts which are not perfect, but would definitely survive AfD, so I'm okay with publishing them. But, in a CTOP area, I don't think I'd want to take responsibility for them, and that's where this decline reason comes into play. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Also agree. In that sense it's not that different from a paid editor situation. They aren't allowed to publish directly because of their COI, but are allowed to create a draft and put it through AfC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It's quite different, as ArbCom explicitly clarified not long ago that creating drafts and sending them to AfC was an ECR violation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Script issue with AfC headers?

Hi! I noticed a few like this where AfC Helper didn't fully remove all of the headers. It was only when I saw it happen again that I realized it wasn't a one off glitch. @SafariScribe has seen it too and asked me to raise. Any thoughts? Thanks! Star Mississippi 13:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Search the archives, it's a known issue, most likely client-side from someone switching away/closing the window too soon (DGG was notoriously bad for having this issue). We've never found a server-side reason for it to be happening. Primefac (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

thank you! Not sure why it didn't come up. Star Mississippi 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

AfC submissions by date category/archive - some strangeness

Hi there! Sorry about the lack of a descriptive title, I couldn't figure out how to describe this briefly enough.

I was looking through some older AfC submissions by date (for example Category:AfC submissions by date/06 July 2022) and noticed that the Category talk article for a date 3 days afterwards was included in the list (Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/09_July_2022). Finding the date mismatch strange, I clicked on that page (for 9th July 2022) and sure enough it has the category for 6th July 2022. In a reverse fashion to the previous example, I tried a bunch of Category talk: AfC submissions by date pages and a lot of them had the same, for example Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/05_February_2022 is part of category Category:AfC submissions by date/02 February 2022. Category:AfC submissions by date/06 July 2022 Category:AfC submissions by date/02 February 2022

In other words:

- for a significant period of time (perhaps years? I'm not sure how many pages are affected or for what period exactly, maybe someone can identify them with some scripting/automation), but at least the chunks of 2022 and 2021 I checked

- for any specific date (day + month + year) which I shall refer to as X

- the "Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/<X>" page is a member of "Category:AfC_submissions_by_date/<X minus 3 days>"

- I am assuming that the page should actually be a member of "Category_talk:AfC_submissions_by_date/<X>"

I'm asking here in case there's some reason for this that I was unaware of, or maybe it's actually incorrect. Either way, perhaps someone would like to investigate it, and if it's definitely a mistake, maybe an editor who runs automated stuff could fix it. Admittedly, it is very minor, but it confused me.

Kind regards and I hope everyone has a wonderful Friday! :) B4shful (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The short answer is that the wrong banner was added, it should be {{WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)}}, and when the wrong banner was added the bot (correctly) added a timestamp per its rules (cats are created three days in advance). I'll spin through and see about updating them all. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

After thinking about it (and prepping to clean up the 4k+ categories where this is an issue) I think deletion is more appropriate for these talk pages; they are already in the category tree and I'm not really sure that we need the talk pages cluttering up the (admin) category (Category:Category-Class AfC project pages). I'll leave this for comment/review but if not I'll delete these talk pages at the end of the day. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Glitch in Template:AfC statistics/accepted

Template:AfC statistics/accepted seems to have the 5-year-old article "Sam Orlando Miller" permanently listed. Is that just a glitch? Is it ok to delete it manually? (There is a caution in a hidden comment at the top of the page.) I have already asked at User talk:The Earwig#Template:AfC statistics/accepted without getting a response. Nurg (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Must you be an article reviewer to answer help desk questions?

I sometimes respond to help desk questions in the AFC help desk, however I am not an AFC reviewer. May I ask if this is allowed? I usually respond to the ones I can help out with, such as newer editors especially when informing them on wikipedia notability policy, what wikipedia is not etc. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't work the help desk, but it should be OK, as long as your answers are correct and helpful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks Thehistorianisaac (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

For my part, any help at the HD is welcome. Fill your boots! :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the above; any and all positive help is appreciated. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Question About Rejection

Maybe this question has been answered many times before, but I didn't see or don't remember the answer. If I am reviewing a draft that has been declined previously, and it is my personal opinion that the author is a good-faith submitter, but the draft is not capable of being improved to where it will be ready for acceptance, but I think that maybe other editors might have a less negative opinion, should I Reject the draft, or should I decline the draft with advice that the author should ask for advice from other editors before reworking and resubmitting it? I am wondering in particular whether I made a mistake in Rejecting such a draft with a note that the author should not resubmit without asking for advice at the Teahouse. Some editors there said that the draft had been Rejected, and that was the end of the line. I don't want to reject a draft from a good-faith submitter if that means that they may not ask for further advice that might reverse the rejection; but I don't want to encourage a good-faith editor to continue working on a dead end.

Maybe this question has been answered, but if so, I may be ignorant of the answer. How final is a rejection? Should I advise an editor whose draft has been rejected that they may ask for advice at the Teahouse, or should I ask for advice at the Teahouse before rejecting a draft from a good-faith submitter?

I will go ahead and reject drafts submitted by trolls, or drafts that are bad jokes, or conflict of interest drafts that don't quite qualify for G11. But what sort of judgment should I use on whether to reject good-faith dead end drafts? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

When in doubt, it doesn't hurt to decline it rather than reject it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. That being said, in your (/Robert) example you say you rejected it and then tell them to go to the Teahouse; if a draft is going to be rejected, there is nothing more that the submitter can do, so telling them to ask for help somewhere else isn't, well, helpful.

There is nothing wrong with rejecting a draft from a good-faith submitter. Not every subject is going to be notable, and we are in a better position to judge that than the average newbie; if someone's garage band is a not-now-not-ever case then rejection is the best idea. If one is rejecting a draft, though, it needs to be clearly indicated that the draft falls into the "don't bother" category and further editing is pointless unless there is a sea change in the notability field (e.g. someone hits a big break).

As Novem says, though, if you're not sure or there might be more information, just decline and save the headache down the line. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed KylieTastic (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, I need to prepare a template with a canned decline message that says not to resubmit the draft without first discussing it at either the Teahouse or the AFC Help Desk, and that if it is resubmitted without discussion, it will be rejected, and may be sent to WP:MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The comments on a rejected draft should maybe say that if the draft is resubmitted, the draft will be sent to MFD, and the submitter may be sent to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Resubmission of rejected drafts is not uncommon. Sometimes it is done by COI editors, and sometimes it is done by ultras, overly enthusiastic editors, sometimes fans of an actress. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily need to go crazy with notices about how to get around rejection. If someone wants to write a simple subst'able template (e.g. User:Primefac/RS) that has a message relating to rejection and more information to kind of soften the blow by all means go for it. If folk think the rejection template needs more text, that can be worked out as well. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

That RS template isn't a rejection template. That RS template is a decline template. We often do need to give additional information in declining a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I was using that as example of a simple subst-able template that could be used when leaving a comment. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on getting around rejection, unless we mean restating that you shouldn't try to get around rejection. We have already said that rejection is final. My comments were about providing additional information on what to do after a decline, and about stating that rejected drafts should not be resubmitted (and so the originator should not try to get around rejection). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Article categories

One of the things I struggle with the most when reviewing drafts and accepting them is sorting them into applicable categories. This is especially true with topics I have almost no experience with. What's the best strategy for picking categories? Or is it really just a matter of reading through and taking time to research categories? Rambley (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Few of us will ever be experts in all the areas so just do your best and if you don't think you can add enough tag as needing more. You'll get better over time as you run into the same. There are usually a couple of people who review all new accepts, and those interested in the topic areas. Sp if you watch your accepted articles for a few days you'll often see what you could have done to improve with cats, and other items. For some subjects looking at similar or related articles can help. Making sure suitable WikiProjects have been added will help bring interested parties. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I typically leave it blank and let the WP:GNOMEs handle it. If I am in the mood to do categories, I've found the best technique is to find an article that is very similar, and look at its categories for ideas. For example, if I am reviewing an article on a plant, I'll find another article on a plant and look at its categories for ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

My personal philosophy is to find at least one category. That should be dreadfully easy, mainly because AFCH auto-completes the most likely candidates. Putting in a cat or two keeps it out of the entirely uncategorised pile, but still leaves room for the gnomes to have their way with more specific categorising. Primefac (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to what everyone has said, if you decide to leave it without categories or with only one or two, it's a good idea to put the appropriate maintenance tags on the article so that someone else can find it more easily. I have to admit I frequently accept articles and then tag them with "uncat" and "orphan". -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I usually avoid assigning categories and tag the article with {{improve categories}}. That action, by the way, has the effect of adding the article to a maintenance category, but the question was about content categories. As Novem Linguae says, there are gnomes who specialize in assigning categories, and they can do a better job than most of us can, if we ask them to help by tagging the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Northwest Labor Employment and Law Office

This seems to be languishing, with no one wanting to review this time around. Bringing it here for more opinions. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I've accepted it. The sources were certainly better than when I first saw this a few months ago, and I'd give it decent chances of surviving an AfD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Super, thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Request to move draft for review – Girish Chandra Jha

Hello, I have written an article about Girish Chandra Jha in my Sandbox: 🔗 User:Riddhimaan.RonnieJha/sandbox However, I am unable to move it to the Draft Space myself. Could an experienced editor please review it and move it if appropriate? Thank you for your help! Riddhimaan.RonnieJha (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Reworking a rejected draft

I couldn't find any instructions anywhere covering this situation, sorry if it is a duplicated question. If I, as an experienced user, come across a draft that has been rejected via the AfC process and take it upon myself to improve that draft to the point of being ready for the mainspace, am I required to re-submit it for approval through AfC or is it fine for me to remove the AfC template and move the draft to mainspace myself? The template says "Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted" but that could just be for new/inexperienced users. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

You may remove the templates and move to mainspace yourself. AFC is optional and anyone may WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I see you're an NPP so hopefully you know what you're doing :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response :) - adamstom97 (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Novem Linguae, but from a more general/broad standpoint: if the draft has been significantly reworked, it would be acceptable to resubmit to AFC if desired (i.e. get a second opinion etc) if an editor feels it has overcome the previous issues (I would compare this to a "did they get it past WP:G4" check for an article deleted at AFD). Primefac (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Identical CoI declarations from different editors

See Draft:Berke İri, Draft:Mirjam Raymond, Draft:Crimson Arc Games Draft:Wearside Roller Derby League and probably others. All created by different editors who have posted an identical CoI declaration as an AfC comment on the draft:

• Comment: In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article.
  
  Is this something in the article wizard? SK2242 (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if you go through the Article Wizard and declare you have a conflict of interest, it automatically adds {{AfC submission/coi}} to the top of the draft, which apparently produces that message. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed that template was only created a few days ago, I was wondering why I'd never seen it before. SK2242 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

What's the reason why it puts it on the draft page? I get that it's more obvious to the reviewers this way, but someone will now have to move the disclosure manually. Also, the system replicates comments by non-reviewers each time the draft is reviewed, which means after a few reviews it becomes a mess. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Automatically_add_paid/coi_disclaimer_to_drafts posted by Ahecht. It would have been nice if the change not been notified here as I would think more reviewers see this page than Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard. Looks to be a good change, it has just taken people by surprise. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@KylieTastic I could've sworn that I *had* cross-posted it here, but it looks like I only notified Template talk:AfC preload. In any case, @DoubleGrazing I fixed the issue with the script replicating the comment, and the AFCH script now should move it to the talk page automatically when the draft is accepted. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Odd disclosures

I've seen half a dozen drafts today with one of these disclosures on the draft page, entered as an AfC comment (which then duplicates it with each review):

Comment: In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, I disclose that I have been paid by my employer for my contributions to this article.

or

Comment: In accordance with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, I disclose that I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this article.

Has something changed in the system which is causing this, or is this some sort of coordinated campaign? At least a few of the drafts today were fairly spammy/hoaxy. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing See previous section. KylieTastic (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And now I'm off to Specsavers... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Brian McCall (politician)

I would like comments on two aspects of whether I have handled this draft reasonably. This draft has the recently discussed COI indicator. I saw, on reviewing the draft, that the subject satisfies political notability as a former state legislator. The content appears to me to be neutral, but I want a second opinion and so have tagged it as having a {{COI}} so that another reviewer can check. The draft was Draft:Brian McCall, and the title Brian McCall was a stub on a baseball player who got in under the previous ipso facto notability for professional athletes, and is viewed approximately once a day. I have boldly renamed the stub to Brian McCall (baseball), which leaves a redirect at the primary title that I will be converting to a disambiguation page. So my questions are about whether I had reason to:

• boldly disambiguate a stub.
• Accept but tag a draft submitted by a paid editor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, some of the statements on that article could do with some sourcing though. SK2242 (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

American politics and ECR ?

Maybe I am reading some discussion here incorrectly, but it appears that there are some references to American politics (after 1992) being subject to extended-confirmed restrictions. I can't find a place where there is an extended-confirmed restriction for American politics. I know that extended-confirmed covers Israel and Palestine. I know that if an article is about the views of American politicians on the Gaza War, both ARBAP2 and ARBPIA5 apply. But my question is: Are American politics articles subject to ECR, always, when specified by an admin, or never?

I recently reviewed Draft:2025 United States constitutional crisis and thought it had neutrality issues. On further thinking, I think it also has crystal balling. But the other problem was that, although the draft was originally the work of an established editor, most of the recent edits and the submission for review were by an IP editor. I declined the draft, and the IP then blanked it repeatedly, and it was restored, and it is now semi-protected. But my question is whether a reviewer should expect drafts on American politics topics to be by extended-confirmed authors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon There is no EC restriction for American politics, just a contentious topics designation. Mach61 06:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Strange unsigned comments

Whilst trying to leave a comment on Draft:Dr. Sheikh Abdullah, I kept seeing these comments from seemingly no one? For some reason the template {{AFC comment|1=Needs references.} appears to have inserted itself twice automatically without a signature or any actual edit. What is stranger is that it gave me two edit conflicts as well, and it looks like it just tagged along with my edit. I noticed that ForsythiaJo did leave that exact template with a signature, but only once. I wanted to ask if there was a bug or something and if anyone else had seen something like it? Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It might have had something to do with ForsythiaJo manually leaving an AfC comment and signing their name outside of the template, although that doesn't explain the duplication. Weird. SK2242 (talk) 07:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Tracked in github.com
Issue #206

Been a bug for a while see issue 206 KylieTastic (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Wiki project

Hello. Introduce me to WikiProjects! Thanks. (GooddayYaxshikun (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC))

Hi GooddayYaxshikun, not really sure what you're asking about. We are a WikiProject, a group of like-minded individuals who want to work on reviewing new drafts submitted to the project. WikiProjects focus on a specific theme, such as military history, astronomy, or significant women. More information is at Wikipedia:WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. (GooddayYaxshikun (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC))

archiving woes

Scsbot hasn't been adding new date headings or archived any old posts for a few days. See this post from scs. I have added headings but I guess the archiving also needs to be done manually for a bit. I might have time to look at that later today, but am not sure – there's multiple steps to the archiving I think, and perhaps someone else has a better grasp of what needs to be done? --bonadea contributions talk 09:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I have changed the heading for consistency with other pages affected. Per the discussion at RD, the best solution may be to move to a standard bot setup as used on all other talk pages and noticeboards. See also

• Wikipedia_talk:Help_desk#archiving_woes
• Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#archiving_woes

TSventon (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thanks! I don't think I dare tinker with it myself, though, not being well-versed in the ways of bots. Happy temla Tuesday! --bonadea contributions talk 11:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I see that, like me, you archive your talk page manually. If you wanted to use a different bot, you could ask for help at the help desk. I will probably have to do that for the help desk archiving. TSventon (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea: John of Reading has set up archiving for the help desk, it took three edits first, second, third. TSventon (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Plus a few more edits to Wikipedia:Help desk/Header and Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

TV episodes sockpuppeteer

Just wanted to inform other AfC reviewers that there's a sockpuppeteer submitting drafts in a fan wiki-like writing style; their topic area is television episodes, typically from shows broadcast on the Fox network. Relevant info can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MudBurgers 2005. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 16:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse Not sure what the deleted ones looked like, but does this Draft:Jakobverse raise any flags? Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

No, that looks like a hoax draft made by a clueless kid. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

An actual example I would point to is The Two Hundred, an article the sockpuppeteer heavily contributed to. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, was curious what (type? kind?) of fan wiki you meant. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 00:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The type of fan wiki I'm talking about is of the Fandom/Wikia kind. TL;DR: fan wikis in general. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 00:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Anton Hetz (1830–1900), Austrian mountain guide and alpinist

I want to implement this article for Wikipedia. Anton Hetz was a prominent Austrian mountaineer. Countet (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Countet, that page is not suitable for Wikipedia at this point in time. I suggest you read through WP:YFA and make sure you can demonstrate that Hetz meets our inclusion criteria. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

On a related note, SafariScribe, why do you feel that rejection is appropriate for this draft? Primefac (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I need to mention more sources for the article or design it in a different way, but the article is relevant, maybe it is not implemented or designed to what Wikipedia needs, maybe you can help me edit it better. Countet (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Countet, don't worry about formatting articles are not declined for that (unless an unreadable mess). You need to show the subject is notable (See WP:N) which in most cases requires significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in multiple independent (WP:INDY) reliable sources (WP:RS). Regards KylieTastic (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I just mentioned a new source, thanks, I hope you consider it. Countet (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I have declined instead of "reject", however, I first felt that the draft was an unsourced nonsense. Reading it again, I saw a clean up issue but not notability as I have searched for sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now is backlogged - how long should drafts be marked under review for?

@SafariScribe has majority of the 42 drafts marked as under review in Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now. Most of them have been under review for 6 days.

I was under the impression we shouldn't really be marking drafts as under review for more than 24 hours?

@SafariScribe perhaps finish reviewing the ones you've marked as under review before adding any further ones, or undo your under review to let other reviewers review them? It feels unfair on the draft authors to let them languish under review for 6+ days. qcne (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Qcne, Hope this finds you well. Is there any policy that other user could have permission to lift that under review mark which has been for long time. I think administrator need to look into after this. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, any reviewer could take up any marked draft. But notifying the reviewer is a good intention even though I don't think it is a rule. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@SafariScribe, Thanks for your swift response. I appreciate your work and Yes, It is not a rule but still It would not be good to have interfare with others work (in drafts which has been under review mark). Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have replied @Qcne on my talk page. I would clear them tonight. Don't worry please. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that 24 hours is a good hold time for these. If this problem cropped up more often, it might be worth creating a bot that automatically removes the "under review" status after 48 hours. I don't think this crops up too often though. Perhaps SafariScribe can just be more careful about finishing their current "under review"s before adding more to the queue, and maybe only add one or two at a time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Help but...

I have an article for creation pending and yet I would like to help the project. Technically, I am 8 years old. With user:Jubileeclipman I am much older... How do I help? Can I? — Iadmc♫^talk  17:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You can apply to become an AFC reviewer at WP:AFC/P. And for others reading, I assume you mean account age not real age. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Account age. — Iadmc♫^talk  00:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks — Iadmc♫^talk  00:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirect with possibilities

I have a question about the {{R with possibilities}} tag. If I am reviewing a draft, and there is a redirect in mainspace, under what circumstances should I tag the redirect with {{R with possibilities}}? Does that mean that I have made a preliminary judgment that the draft may be acceptable, or should I tag the redirect so that it will note the presence of the draft, or is there some other criterion for when I should tag the redirect? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think {{R with possibilities}} means no more and no less than that it is possible that an article could be written at this title. It is not an endorsement of any particular draft being promoted to that title. BD2412 T 22:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Siemens Viaggio Next Level

found this draft through random submission thing. was rejected on december but has expanded significantly since then. has one reliable RS according to some source highlighting thingy that i forgor its name. compared it to alstom movia R151 and the sourcing is a little bit similar to it? seems like it is notable but not sure brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 07:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

also on a completely unrelated note: Draft:2xFE seems to meet one criteria of WP:NMUSICIAN (the chart), but im not sure if i should accept the submission brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 07:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Barron Trump

This is an edge case that has 7 declines that I stumbled across and reviewed. To summarize, Barron Trump has been deleted/redirected 3 times (most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (3rd nomination)) and is now fully protected as a redirect. However, I see significantly more sources that have been created since the most recent AfD resulting in the subject's deletion. Those sources are qualitatively different than the ones discussed at the last AfD and address the sourcing problems brought up at that AfD.

Normally, I'd go to WP:RFPP and ask an admin to unprotect so I can accept the draft (I've done this at Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning). Then, if other editors still believe there's an issue, they can bring the article to WP:AfD. However, this is significantly more contentious+political so I'd like to get input from other AfC reviewers on the right course of action. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I understood the purpose of AfC was to accept articles that were unlikely to be deleted at AfD. Considering a recent AfD (June 2024) effectively deleted the article by redirecting and SALTing it, it's difficult to justify recreating it at the moment. Since turning 18 he seems only to have had his name associated with a couple of very short lived businesses. What are the chances that if the draft gets moved back to article space, it will be boomerang'd staright to AfD again by someone? Sionk (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sionk: It probably would be immediately sent back to AfD. I think it has a greater than 50% chance of surviving, but I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

The follow-up question I have is what the standard should be for recreating. Is it addressing the issues at AfD? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If you think the problems raised in the AfD have been addressed, be bold and accept it. SK2242 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@SK2242: I literally cannot because it's WP:SALTed and fully protected. So I'd need to gain consensus anyways. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chess I think what would be helpful if you want additional opinions from AfC reviewers is to point to WP:THREE or so sources that were published since the last AfD you think establish notability. S0091 (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to just jump in here and start with this Palm Beach Post article, about a third of which is about Baron, mostly the last third:Sangalang, Jennifer; Webb, Kristina; Comstock, Lori. "Barron Trump birthday, spring break? His father may head to Bedminster golf club that weekend". The Palm Beach Post. BD2412 T 20:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@S0091: I linked two in the AfC comment, but I'll repeat them here:

• [1] demonstrates Barron's participation in the administration + cryptocurrency
• [2] indirectly credits Barron for Andrew Tate's release.
• [3] is not in the article yet, but this Vanity Fair piece discusses Barron's influence on the administration and led to the resignation of the president of the NYU branch of the College Republicans.

Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I've read through the last AfD which had overwhelming consensus a stand-alone article about Baron should not exist. Some argued sources were not about him, others argued WP:NOPAGE (even if he meets GNG, a page should not exist) because he is only known in the context of his father/family and several arguing he is not a public person thus it's a BLP issue.

Reviewing the sources in that lens, I don't they are enough to overcome those arguments. The Vanity Fair piece might overcome arguments there aren't sources solely about him but it's one source. It also bolsters the argument he is a private person (He does not speak publicly nor operate a public social media account, which, by all appearances, has only deepened his mystique. Any view of his true place in the Trump firmament arrives in third-party glances.) In addition, many of the people they interviewed have never met him so it reads gossipy and speculative, The Palm Beach Post is speculation about where he might spend spring break with most of the coverage about the President and what is about Barron is the same type coverage that existed during the AfD (when he was born, where he went to school, etc) and it also states his only public appearance was at the inauguration so bolsters the private person argument. The other two sources, to me, are weak sauce. The NYT is standard inauguration coverage and the Financial Times is a brief mention.

Through these sources, the facts we learn about Barron since the last AfD (outside of things like sightings and what he's wearing) are that he is an advisor to his father who convinced him to go on podcasts like Joe Rogan, he was involved in his father's crypto venture though he did not show up for the launch and he was a partner in a real estate venture that never launched. Based on the AfD, folks are likely to argue all that can be covered at Family of Donald Trump assuming it's WP:DUE. Another thing to consider is, if accepted, another AfD is almost a guarantee and if consensus is again to delete/redirect, it's going to be even more difficult to justify a stand-alone article in the future. Of course this is my opinion for whatever it's worth (1/2 cent?). S0091 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I frankly think it's foolish to act as though this subject's public profile will do anything other than increase. Even if he stays absolutely quiet, he'll be watched and covered by the paparazzi, and the trend to this point leaves no reason to think he will stay absolutely quiet. BD2412 T 23:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Here is my involved opinion, having been one of the seven declining reviewers. I declined it because it was not sufficiently different from the version that had been redirected from the third AFD. I think that this is a case where consensus can change, and it is time for another consensus process to decide whether a separate article should be accepted. The only consensus process that I know of that can decide this question is a fourth AFD. So I think that the title should be unsalted and the draft accepted, without trying to guess what the probability of passing the AFD will be, because it is better to let there me a fourth AFD than to leave the title salted. That is my opinion. Desalt the title, accept the draft, and let there be another AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Half the sources currently in the draft postdate the most recent AfD closure. BD2412 T 18:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, a lot of the coverage around him (right now) seems to headline things like "Something random like his birthday or height, here's what his father did or said" and then in the article go on about politics and whatnot. That said, I do like Robert McClenon's idea of unsalting and letting another AFD decide if someone nominates to see the broader consensus. A few months ago I might have just said it's WP:TOOSOON, but in general the quantity and (rate?) of new sources being released has ramped up significantly recently, and I don't see why it would stop. If WP:THREE can be satisfied, then I'd say go ahead with accepting and put a request at RFPP. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 20:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have gone ahead and accepted the draft. BD2412 T 18:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Someone sent to Afd within 10 minutes, yikes. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

BD2412, couldn't you have done it before I took the time to review everything and respond lol. S0091 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Unhelpful

Moved from Template talk:AfC submission § Unhelpful

I was taken a bit aback when I saw that a draft, containing 50 inline citations plus a Sources section with 43 entries, mostly books, altogether taking up about half the space of the draft, was declined (just 37 minutes after it was submitted) with the boiler plate reason "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources". This can mean two things, the sources are not reliable, or, they do not support the statements in the article. There is no indication of how or why which or what, no useful information that the editor can use for improving the draft. The text could just as well have been, "This submission does not meet our standards", in this case just as helpful as the boiler plate. This cannot be the purpose of the AFC review process.  ​‑‑Lambiam 00:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Please drop a link to the draft so this can be investigated in more detail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Here it is: Draft:Russian Conquest of the Astrakhan Khanate.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Randompersonediting. Looks like when declining the above draft, you selected the lacks reliable sources rationale, but the draft has a bunch of books as the citations. Can you please explain your thought process a bit more? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. The draft is an obvious pass, so I have accepted it. I will also add a link to it from the Astrakhan Khanate article. Lambiam, please keep in mind that you (or anyone) is allowed to "move" drafts to mainspace if you're confident they're notable. Draftspace is optional. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing Randompersonediting's user talk page, I found User talk:Randompersonediting/Archive 1#Re your rejection of Draft:Russian Conquest of the Astrakhan Khanate, which was 1) archived far too quickly, I would have liked to reply directly to it instead of it being locked in an archive, and 2) contains a difficult to understand reply from Randompersonediting, suggesting a possible WP:CIR or WP:LLM issue. I think we may need to take a closer look at Randompersonediting's AFC accept/decline history. I would also like to hear directly from Randompersonediting here on this talk page please. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

94% decline Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation again, I see that I misinterpreted the sourcing in Draft:Russian Conquest of the Astrakhan Khanate and declined it . Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 11:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I realize my previous response may have been unclear. I’ll make sure to respond in my own words moving forward. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious, "in my own words" as opposed to what? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I just meant that I’ll make sure to write my own responses without AI assistance. I get that my wording may have sounded off before, and I’ll be more mindful moving forward. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Using AI to reply to messages is just dystopian. If someone doesn't understand policies and guidelines enough to formulate their own response, how can they review pages accurately? They've only had an account for 12 days. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

12 days and three years, otherwise they wouldn't have been eligible in the first place. – Joe (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

@Randompersonediting: This is not an acceptable level of competency. I have removed your ability to review AfC submissions.

We probably need to re-review the rest of Randompersonediting's reviews, because a very quick glance turns up stuff like Draft:French artillery during World War I and Draft:Law on languages of peoples of the Russian Federation which at the very least do not look like quick-declines. – Joe (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

When I posted this, I was aware of the fact that I could just have promoted the draft to mainspace. I actually posted this to voice a concern that the template {{AFC submission}}, and particularly the helper script, make it too easy for declining reviewers to give reviews that do not include enough specific feedback to make them helpful to the submitters. I see now that the instructions for reviewers merely discuss the as-is suitability of a draft for Wikipedia article status and do not even mention the aspect of providing helpful feedback for improvements. I think this may contribute to what can occasionally be a problem. When a draft has at least the potential of becoming an article, the mindset of reviewers should IMO be, "How can I best assist the submitter in getting this up to an acceptable level?"  ​‑‑Lambiam 14:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Broken by design... – Joe (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you , I will take a look Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 16:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment About Reviewing Instructions

It appears that at least this one reviewer was using a Large Language Model to assist them in their writing. The instructions for reviewers have predated the introduction of Large Language Models, and it may have been obvious to experienced editors that Wikipedia editors should not be using LLMs to do their writing for them. It obviously isn't obvious, because there is also at least one thread at WP:ANI where an editor acknowledged that they were using an LLM to clean up their grammar, and they were told that that they should not use an LLM. The instructions for reviewers may need to have a few things not to do added. Do not bite the new editors. Do not use a Large Language Model. It appears that explicit prohibitions on the use of Large Language Models are sometimes in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)