Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, FeedShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subjectReviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Dec 2025

Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!

AfC submissions Random submission

2+ months

2,463 pending submissions

• 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 December 01, 2025

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

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

@NeoGaze It is permitted, and all that is needed is a {{Free-content attribution}} at the bottom of the draft and maybe a {{Uw-unattribcc}} on the submitter's talk page. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NeoGaze, here's a simplified explainer: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It looks like the reference includes " Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. License" so this is adequate. Alternatively, you may see a template at the bottom of the referencing section as well, for example {{Free-content attribution}}. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn @Sophisticatedevening Allright. Thanks for your quick replies! NeoGaze (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend using {{CCBYSASource}} in this case since the attribution wasn't added in the same edit as the copied content. That way it's more clear that there is a span of revisions which erroneously imply that they are GFDL compatible. Perryprog (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Draftification of accepted AfC submissions

This might be a discussion that's occurred already, but is there any generally agreed on position for whether draftification of already-accepted AfC submissions is acceptable? WP:DRAFTNO in point 6 states that an article should generally avoid draftifying when another editor has asserted the article should exist in mainspace, which I think draft acceptance pretty clearly demonstrates. (I would also argue that even the creator unilaterally moving a declined or rejected draft, unless they have a COI, also meets this criteria, but it's probably better to discuss the case where the draft has been properly accepted first.) That being said, WP:DRAFTOBJECT states an article should only be moved to draftspace a single time.

Despite this, it's not at all uncommon to see draftifications of previously accepted AfC articles, and this is often not contested (I just accepted an eight-week old draft with no declines that was a draftified-accepted-draft!) So, should we care about this more strongly than we have? Should we just "procedurally" accept drafts that are like this? I'm especially curious to see what any NPPers have to say. Perryprog (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Unless there are very major problems with it and it really should not have been accepted then it shouldn't be draftified again, but it does happen and is fine for them to do so. It's also perfectly fine to push against and move it back if you object to it. If it's a deletion-worthy problem then they can send it to AfD, if not then it should be tagged or fixed then. As far as reviewing previously draftified articles you should not "procedurally" accept them, they should be reviewed the same as any other draft. Accepting and draftifying are typically unilateral decisions and there is always going to be disagreements, especially on borderline drafts, but if it is accepted a second time then that's when WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies and it shouldn't be moved back again and then it's an AfD matter. Now subjectively I think the reason people don't care about this more strongly is that it really isn't that huge of a deal unless your accepts are frequently being undone. It's almost guaranteed to happen to one of your reviews eventually, so don't stress and take it hard when it does. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 16:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I don't mean to imply that this is something that really matters—it's just a small pattern I've noticed that I feel goes against the wording of DRAFTNO. (Not that that's even a guideline, of course!) And I do agree that there will be times when something gets accepted when it really shouldn't have and drafticiation can definitely be the best course of action. What I'm not sure about is they should be reviewed the same as any other draft—essentially, the draft has been accepted, and was asserted by that acceptor to belong in articlespace. I don't feel strongly about this, of course.

While this hasn't happened to drafts I've reviewed, though I appreciate your advice regarding if it does, I'm actually more concerned about the impact it has on the original draft author. AfC is infamously a pretty harsh process, with a much higher bar than passing NPP. Being able to pass that process only to have sudden whiplash as the page gets thrown back in your face being told "no, actually, this isn't good enough for Wikipedia" has got to be pretty disheartening. Not to mention, there's also no guarantee that the person is even willing to further refine the draft (example), in which case the borderline-acceptable draft is then more or less guaranteed to end up falling into the bin of G13. Perryprog (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

AFC accepts usually shouldn't be draftified. However, the specific case you mentioned (Synthetic organelles) seems reasonable. An NPP reviewer judged it was wholly AI-generated, and sent it to draftspace for cleanup. It was cleaned up, then moved back. The two "failed verification" tags are the WP:AITELL here. The NPP reviewer checked the sources and found they didn't support the cited text. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It should not matter if the article was accepted via AfC. I accept drafts I think are borderline or make mistakes/miss something so I depend on NPP for a second check. We also have new reviewers who are learning and sometimes UPE/sock reviewers. NPP should review AfC accepts just like they would any other article. S0091 (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Accepted AFC submissions should be in a state where the article is very unlikely to be nominated for deletion (or be draftified), and should have a very good chance of surviving a deletion nomination. Of course, mistakes do happen. When it comes to moving articles to draft space, it may be necessary to only do so for when the article creator is or was active in the last month. Articles can be in draftspace twice, but only moved to draftspace once from mainspace. JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

very unlikely to be nominated for deletion, very good chance of surviving a deletion nomination. I hear "50% chance of surviving a deletion discussion" more often than I hear "very good chance of surviving a deletion discussion". –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It's an interesting dichotomy, because while I agree the common wisdom is the 50/50 chance as you state (and has been discussed here many a time), going back to at least 2015 the reviewer instructions state that Articles that will probably survive a listing at [AFD] should be accepted. Articles that will probably not survive should be declined. I think the whole 50/50 thing comes from the "Maybe, but I'm not sure" part of the yes/no/maybe trio; if you're not sure, and it might survive AFD, then it's probably worth accepting. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Because AFC is designed for new users and I wouldn't want a new user to be congratulated, only for the article to then be nominated for deletion. AFC reviewers may not have the NPP/autopatrolled right, which is why the article may need a second review after being accepted. Of course, nothing is stopping anyone to nominate a reviewed article/redirect (whether directly or via AFC) for deletion. No to mention other avenues exist before deletion, as outlined at WP:ATD. JuniperChill (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

On the flip side they get an article accepted then it just being returned to draft with no clear explanation to them or the AfC reviewers is also very confusing and negative. At least at AfD they can argue their point, draftification is still used too often as backdoor deletion. As AfC reviewers can miss things dratification needs to be allowed but it should be explained. It should also be made clear that if the submitter or reviewer disagree they can use WP:DRAFTOBJECT move back and not be re-draftified. KylieTastic (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there are any hard rules about this, nor should there be. If a reviewer misses something like an LLM post or copyvio issues, the page should be returned to the draft without reservation. On the other hand, if the NPR just thinks it's not acceptable, then it should be sent to AFD because DRAFTOBJECT has technically been met (two editors believe the draft is acceptable, i.e. the submitter and the reviewer).

As far as the effect on the draft writer/submitter, that is somewhat of a concern (and if it were me I would rather my draft be re-draftified than nominated for deletion, where there is most definitely a shorter clock to contend with) and I'm not really sure how best to deal with that. Primefac (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I think all of this is on the reviewer's shoulders. If you're not up for it, ask for help on this talk page. Review work should be checked and if sound, use WP:DRAFTOBJECT. If not, apologize to the author. If it ends up in AfD, the reviewer gets some new experience to calibrate their reviewing going forward. IME we lose more promising articles to G13 (and PROD) than we do to AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Sandbox subpages

Recently there have been a lot of drafts submitted as sandbox subpages (username/sandbox/draft-title), wonder if some AI tool is responsible for that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Eh... I'd suspect more it's a "monkey see monkey do" related to either a class assignment or some new WikiHow page. Primefac (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GS/KURD

Hi everybody, this is just a reminder that under WP:GS/KURD is under extended-confirmed restriction, which means that if you come across drafts written about Kurds and/or Kurdistan, you can CSD them as WP:G5 if their creator is not yet XC. Please also leave {{subst:Gs/alert|topic=kurd}} on the talk pages of editors who haven't received it yet. I'm bringing this up because a single (non-NPP/AFC) editor has been doing most of the sock-wrangling and tagging in this topic area, which isn't sustainable. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

AFCH Script Hangs

Sometimes the AFCH script hangs when I am trying to decline a draft. It starts after I have viewed the draft in Firefox. I click the review (afch) tab, and the screen provides the green button to accept, the red button to decline or reject, and the yellow button for a comment. I click the red button. I then select one or two decline codes, and enter text in the text window, and press the red Decline button. It says DECLINING, and then nothing visible happens. It doesn't indicate that it wrote on the talk page of the originator, and it doesn't finish redisplaying the draft. If I click on the history tab, it doesn't list the action that I tried to take, but shows that nothing has happened. So I start over, by pressing the red button again, and the problem often recurs, sometimes three or four times. Sometimes I have had to deal with the problem by viewing the draft in Microsoft Edge.

Is this a known problem? If so, what is known about it? If not, is there a way that I can help collect information about the problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have also been experiencing this for a few months, but I use Microsoft Edge. Refreshing the page tends to resolve it. I know that a very large AfC log can lag the script - I was advised by @Asilvering to keep my log fairly small with archiving. qcne (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

If large AFC logs are to blame, that is probably fixable. Someone should feel free to make a github ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Although I did have some problems when the logs got very big that is not Roberts issue as he does not have them enabled. KylieTastic (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I think @Rusalkii was looking into it, but she might have gotten sidetracked. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

What is the AFC log? I thank User:KylieTastic for saying that I do not have this feature enabled, because that clarifies that this is a feature that I have not enabled. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Robert use the (preferences) link at the top of the AFCH tool: there is a "Log acceptances, declines, and rejects" option. If enabled it created logs like on User:KylieTastic/AfC log _{(which shows how little reviewing I have got done since being an admin!)}. KylieTastic (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

And we already agreed that you had done more reviewing than was necessary. You were one of two admin candidates whose edit count was so high that I asked what tools you had been using, and your answer had mostly been about AFCH. So maybe your amount of reviewing now is reasonable rather than excessive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I will try refreshing the page and purging the cache the next time that this happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback that this is a known problem for some reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, it may also be that you have some scripts conflicting with each other. More likely to happen if you have a lot of different scripts all trying to run at the same time. For anyone having this kind of problem, I suggest writing some conditions into your common.js to cut down on potential loading conflicts. Mine's not fully sorted, but there are some annotations in there to get you started: User:Asilvering/common.js. -- asilvering (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I looked at it, concluded it was not doing the absolutely trivial to fix thing I was worried it was, and dropped it because I didn't have the energy to look further. This isn't to say that whichever idiot wrote that didn't do some other stupidly inefficient trivial to fix thing, if anyone with more experience than me with mediawiki code wants to take a look. Rusalkii (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I have had this problem again several times in the last few days, and have purged the cache each time, and have found that that solves the problem each time. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Is AfC for re-drafting articles deleted at AfD?

on the topic of drafts seeking to recreate articles deleted at AfD, where the AfD is not contested, but the editor believes that new sources overcome the reason for delete, User WAID asks:

Does AFC want such articles? If we won't ask DRV to address this because they're volunteers and we speculate that most of them don't want these requests, then we should by the same token be wary of pushing these onto a different group of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the question whether AfC will consider a draft on a subject, after an article on the same has been deleted following AfD? If so, then in practical terms I don't see that AfC has much choice but to consider what is submitted to it. (Whether it "wants" to, may be a different thing.)

If the draft is substantially identical to the deleted version, WP:G4 might (or might not; there seem to be different views on this) apply, but unless the reviewer is an admin they won't be able to see the deleted version to make the comparison, so that point is largely academic. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I am wiling to review any AFC draft on its merits, whether previously deleted, even if salted. Use of AFC shows good faith to me, certainly in this regard. Dr is intended only to look at the deletion process, not content.

I choose extra care when I see a deletion record, but it does not prejudice me against what is in front of me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 07:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Just noting that G4 does not apply to a draft if the deleted page is an article. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

"because they're volunteers" — do they think AfC is paid? If so I'm due a lot of back pay! On the actual point AfC should be happy to review amended drafts that are significant improvements and it already does with some that are draftified from WP:REFUND. However, if every deleted AfD could just be refunded here at request it could overload an already failing system. Also with some creators I can see that turning into tedious re-submission. So I would propose two safeguards: [1] to be refunded to draft the request (to the deleting admin, REFUND or DRV) must present new sources; [2] if a AfDed draft is resubmitted after refund with little to no improvement we need a quicker way to re-delete. KylieTastic (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's a REFUND, that's shown in the history, which makes it relatively easy for also a non-admin reviewer to figure out whether the draft is essentially the same as the deleted article. It's when the submitter recreates the content that one needs admin goggles. (And now that I've said that, some AI tool out there has picked up on it and will be recommending this approach to anyone wanting to cover their tracks...) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

If it's deleted, you don't necessarily need admin goggles, just compare the draft to the AFD itself; if the issues causing the page to be deleted are still in the draft, decline. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I have zero problem with an AfD-deleted subject being restarted as a draft, unless it was a hoax or attack page in the first place. BD2412 T 20:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If a reviewer is reviewing a draft and the title was previously deleted, the reviewer can ask Requests for Undeletion to provide a temporary copy of the deleted article so that they can compare the new draft with the deleted article. If they are the same or almost the same, the reviewer should either decline or reject the draft as not notable, because the community has already decided on whether it is notable. If the draft is an improvement, the reviewer can assess whether they think that the new article is likely to be kept in AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion requested: Draft:Andrew Brettler

A second opinion on this one would be useful. Ignoring for the purposes of this message the fact that the author's username is inappropriate, the subject is definitely notable, but the existing referencing seems rather on the line about whether it satisfies "significant coverage" or not. The actual content seems to be a bit skimpy too, but I'm hesitant to outright decline a submission on a clearly notable topic if the issues could be easily addressed/fixed via maintenance tagging. But I also don't want to accept something that will just get AFD'd shortly thereafter. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash why you think they are notable? Did you find better sources? S0091 (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

IMO he's notable solely for being involved in such high-profile cases and with high-profile individuals. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Taking Out The Trash I disagree. An attorney plies for hire, like a taxi. Their involvement with cases does not create notability. The sole thing which creates notability is not their case profile, but what is said about them in multiple reliable independent secondary sources.

No coverage of that nature? Then they are a WP:ROTM attorney.

I have not checked the references. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Timtrent; notability is not inherited. According to the April 2022 Variety interview and Hollywood Reporter's 2022 Top Power Attorneys, he was a partner at Martin Singer's firm (Lavely & Singer). It's odd that's not mentioned in the draft but that seems to be where he was working when he was representing most, if not all, the high-profile clients listed. He's not a 'nobody' but I don't see notability. S0091 (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Out-of-process mass moving of drafts to mainspace

...by a newcomer account, Korushomar (talk · contribs), at this writing--one of which happens to be a recent submission of mine. Just to inform the AFC team for now; I was wondering if reminding WP:AN/I would also be a given. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 09:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made an inquiry to them. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to ward off any potential pitchforks, a mild reminder that unless the moves are disruptive (e.g. moving a ton of drafts that are clearly not acceptable) the default assumption should not be something is "wrong". Thanks to 331dot for taking the initial step of seeing what their plans are. Has anyone looked at the moves to see if they're not unreasonable? Primefac (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at a few and just as a very light spotcheck (like, 30 second look-over) none of them seem blatantly problematic. Perryprog (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Second opinion: Neoweberianism

I have spent a while on one of the oldest items in the backlog: Draft:Neoweberianism - I was all set to approve but there were two doubts in my mind - it was an odd subject to come from a single post IP address in this amount of detail, and secondly the early use of the word "encompasses" when 99% of native speakers would say "includes" since it's shorter and easier to spell correctly. So I checked the item in GPTZero and it says 100% LLM.

The sources do check out, it really is a thing and the sources are RS. However some of the citations needed correction, one journal is actually a book, and one missed URL (which I now think is odd, since other citations did get filled in correctly).

Can someone check my checks? Since if I'm wrong the implications are awkward. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Page was nuked. Primefac (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Question About an AFC Category

I have some questions about Category:Pending AfC submissions in article space. As of about 0500Z, 14 October 2025, the category is displaying User talk:Job oeri onguti. That isn't in article space. First, maybe this is the wrong place to ask, because this is a question about how categories work, where can I view the logic that populates the category? Second, and related, why is a user talk page showing up in a category that is meant to display articles with an AFC template? Is the category displaying pages with AFC templates that are neither in draft space nor in user space?

If I am now successful, you will no longer be able to observe this behavior, because I will remove the autobiographical information and the AFC template, so that this page will be restored to its user as a user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Logic is at {{AfC submission/created}}. – DreamRimmer ■ 04:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

"Logic" is a bit generous. The category is applied by that template unequivocally. (Unless in a sandbox/testcase subpage.) It's just a poor category name, in my opinion. Perryprog (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not a poor category name; there is zero reason that the /created template should be anywhere other than in the article space, because the only place that {{AfC submission}} calls the /created template is in the article namespace. In other words, a direct transclusion of the /created template is likely to be wrong anyway because the template should not be transcluded directly. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I think the "in article space" part of the category can be a bit misleading if it's meant to include any pages that have the /created template transcluded. Though, "Pending AfC submissions" is obviously not any better as that just sounds like a category of submitted drafts. Perryprog (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Drafts created by AI

Am I alone in being very depressed about the vast quantity of junk draft articles created by AI? Do we warn users about using LLM anywhere beforehand? Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am also very depressed and the fact that AfC accepts seem to be trending downwards I think posits that a lot of reviewers are encountering this. The Article Wizard does contain a warning. Maybe it could be stronger? qcne (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(I'll also note reviewers discuss this quite a lot and share examples and vent on the NPP Discord) qcne (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Nope, I found it depressing. LLMs have just meant that people can overload AfC with junk at a faster rate. It's one reason I have mostly stopped reviewing (but also after 10+ years of grinding through reviews just had enough and needed a break). KylieTastic (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

A few years ago I thought that the greatest threat to the integrity of Wikipedia was paid editing. I still think that, a few years ago, the greatest threat to the integrity of Wikipedia was paid editing. Now I think that the greatest threat to the integrity of Wikipedia is artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It's rough, yeah. What only makes it worse is that false accusations of LLM usage (which I think happen far more often than people expect) are also incredibly damaging to people's morale. I also often feel that an AI-based decline on its own feels like it's sometimes a poor reason to deny a draft, as it doesn't necessarily point towards any specific issue or give any actionable item to the submitter besides "just, like, redo it". I don't disagree that it's a necessary decline reason, but I sometimes wish it was more often paired with a secondary decline reason, or a comment explaining what needs to be done. (E.g., check citations verify each statement, clean-up flowery prose, fix markdown-styled formatting...) Perryprog (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, much as I hate the AI slop infecting every part of society I think G15s are slapped on in a very bitey way a lot of the time. I hope the process gets some tuning going forward. KylieTastic (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

(I am definitely more willing to AI decline/G15 if it's a paid editor... if you're getting paid to edit, at least put the work in.) Perryprog (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I have seen a number of drafts rejected for AI even though I can not find any smoking guns or strong evidence. Aside from obvious signs of meta-commentary, emojis, ChatGPT citations, lots of em-dashes, and nonsensical bolding, are there other ways of identifying AI that I miss? GGOTCC 03:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I am doubtful. WP:AISIGNS lists a good few but... they're all so circumstantial and many of them are just things that people will do when first contributing to Wikipedia. Like, capital letters in headings? Really? That's something that you learn in middle school to do and we're treating that as a sign of AI writing—it just happens to be that we don't title case our section headers. And I mean, if you think someone is using LLMs, just... ask? It's a world of difference to be unsure and ask versus just accuse someone who has English as an L2 and has an odd writing style or whatever.

(And I will forever resent anyone who claims em dashes are a sign of AI writing. I was there first.) Perryprog (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and I have never rejected an article for AI unless ChatGPT metacommentary still remains. While em-dashes are not a sign of AI writing on its own, my point is that an excessive and unnatural amount tend to be a visual hint of AI use, especially if the rest of the article reads like another person wrote it. I am a student and I am VERY AWARE about the risks and personal insult false accusations of AI use carry. GGOTCC 03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a single "sign" of LLM writing is never sufficient, nor even a few together. I always try to be aware that some people do use LLMs as a first shot at getting the language right...if I had to start writing paragraphs in German for my work, I'm sure I'd be doing the same thing.

That said, hallucinated references are a 100% nonstarter, especially in scientific subjects where I do much of my editing. If you can't check your references, why should I trust anything you say, no matter how well-meaning you might be? That's not a matter of writing style or language proficiency, but laziness.

But I think we are probably safe declining edits/articles where the AI signs are pervasive and repeated throughout the article (not just one part). I've noticed a huge uptick lately in scientific articles that have a very specific format: Several very short sections (sometimes a single sentence gets a subsection heading), each with one citation at the very end; few to no wikilinks; abbreviations defined at the beginning but used inconsistently thereafter; prose that meanders and goes off onto tangents on peripheral topics before coming back to the main topic (almost as if someone doesn't know what is the main topic and what is peripheral!); a "summary" or "implications for..." section at the end; references that are technically valid but whose main focus is off-topic; and of course bulleted lists aplenty. I feel comfortable rejecting these because they were clearly cranked out with little human oversight for how effectively they get the information across. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

My working hypothesis is that the internet has been inundated with human-crafted slop over the last couple of decades and this forms part of the training datasets. It can be difficult to distinguish between AI slop and artisanal handmade marketing filler, which is why it's important that AI isn't the only reason for declining – the primary reason is usually some kind of notability issue. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I certainly agree, and it good to see others who are not that gun-ho on denying articles for AI use without direct evidence. GGOTCC 03:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, after reading further here (#Notability decline reminder), I agree with the above (my previous comment below), as notability has greater utility. But a lot of people relying on llms are simply nothere anyway.

I think if a draft is poorly written enough that it seems AI-generated, there's no chance it belongs in mainspace. My thinking is that there is no point of determining notability or the reliability of sourcing if the content is unreadable (as most llm writing tends to be). I just posted this proposal below, if anyone in this discussion has thoughts. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It's incredibly disheartening, it makes Wikipedia editing depressing and frustrating, and and I am convinced that in the long run, LLMs are making Wikipedia worse than useless. It's great that you are discussing it on Discord (unfortunately I don't believe there is a way to use Wikipedia's Discord server while remaining anonymous so I can't participate there) but I really wish that reviewers were not so reluctant to decline drafts on AI grounds when they are not 100% sure a draft is AI generated. --bonadea contributions talk 12:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bonadea What do you mean by remain anonymous? There is a username, same as here, so there is similar anonymity on the public-facing front. CMD (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I am not completely sure, but I think that it is impossible to hide or cloak one's user name and profile information, even when there is an option to change the display name. I already have a Discord account and am active in a few servers, and I'm not prepared to remove all my profile information (besides, at Discord I have a user name that is traceable to myself, unlike the name Bonadea which I only use at Wikipedia). It's not that I am worried about my safety, because the people who threaten you are pretty unlikely to do anything if you live very very far away, but I just don't want to deal with the harassment outside Wikipedia. It would be nice not to have to deal with it at Wikipedia either, but that's never going to be an option for any of us, I fear. --bonadea contributions talk 20:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your response I don't know what the solution is but it's only going to get worse, I am declining at least 10 AI created drafts a day, always with a secondary reason. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I refuse to be depressed. I am perturbed by some of the slop, AI or otherwise, submitted to us. I find automated slop to be offensive, but, and this is key, some AI material is not slop, and can be reviewed to encourage improvement. Much is slop that has spilled out of the slop bucket onto the carpet, and G15 is wholly appropriate.

What truly is insulting is a nascent paid editor using AI to generate ordure, and then whining about it. They should be embarrassed about it. I'm not sure whether that is an observation or an exhortation! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Both. The other day I had to read the riot act to a (disclosed) paid editor who submitted an utter abortion of an LLM-written article on a technical topic. I said I was doing them a favor by rejecting, because anyone who paid them would have torn them to shreds upon seeing the product. I don't like to be a WP:DICK but the insult plus the carpet stain was too much for me. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Riot act? GGOTCC 22:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Riot Act, @GGOTCC, the reading of which was a precursor to enforcement action. "Reading [someone] the Riot Act" is akin to delivering a serious verbal chastisement. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you, I have never heard of that saying before! GGOTCC 22:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Some of the worst offenders are those employed by AI companies who believe in their own superiority and that of their product. Disabusing them of such notions in tandem can be hard work, all the while assuming their good faith until proven otherwise 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Twenty drafts declined this morning before breakfast, the vast majority included poor quality AI created content. Theroadislong (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Quizquiz Chiefdom

There is only one draft that has been submitted two months ago. Can someone review it? I am not very interested in the topic. Earth605^talk 13:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but my AfC topic interests are "not BLPs (or most biographies to be honest), companies, organizations, (most) buildings, music, and television or films. Unfortunately that's 99% of drafts... Perryprog (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The majority of the time I don't review blp drafts (Nate sib) or television drafts too.

I like reviewing drafts about miscelanous important topics (Junk journal), buildings and places. Earth605^talk 05:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

My only focus (for now) is the 2 months+ list and I've tried to get them zapped by midnight UK time. I can see I'm not the only one doing this, though I'm not sure who the others are.... Anyway I've processed Quizquiz. Which was an odd one because there is some sourcing but it overlapped with another article to a large degree. ChrysGalley (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It good to see the downturn in both the total number and oldest submits. Good job to those who are involved. KylieTastic (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Rejection Options

Should there be more options for Rejecting a submission besides Notability and Contrary to Purpose of Wikipedia? Sometimes I think that rejecting a submission as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia is bitey, but I don't want to decline it. In particular, I just reviewed Draft:The Silvana Effect, and I think that it is a hoax, but I didn't want to say it was contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I had to say that, because I thought that it should be rejected. Can there be other options, or am I overthinking this? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that newcomer, given their username, was probably expecting at least a nibble. Wiki doesn't host obvious hoaxes so your labelling was spot on. Personally I would have had fewer scruples at using the H word. ChrysGalley (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"Contrary to Purpose of Wikipedia" to me serves as a catch all for everything from a blank page that was resubmitted thrice to keyboard smashes or personal essays. GGOTCC 03:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, there probably shouldn't be more options. Rejection should be as a last of last resorts when it's plainly obvious that there's no other option—either it's borderline CSDable (or is being CSD'd), the editor is performing IDHT submissions, or it's been increasingly clear that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that the topic is notable, and the editor didn't pick up previous hints that that may be the case. (That is, they continued to essentially waste their time trying to write an article about a non-notable topic despite comments saying they're likely not notable.)

Keep in mind that to any newcomer—young or old—a reject will feel like you've just done something truly awful, and is probably a nearly guaranteed way to make sure someone never returns to Wikipedia. Because of this it's really important I think to avoid using rejects on good-faith editors unless it's blindingly obvious why it's needed, and even in those cases I don't think there's any other reason to warrant a rejection. Perryprog (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with User:Perryprog that Rejection should be kept to a minimum because it is likely to be taken personally, and the submitter has reason to take it personally. That is why I may seem to overthink about Rejection. Use it seldom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Not included on list

Hello! I've noticed that I'm not included on the participants list (while also not on the inactive list) - this may be due to me having a gap of two years between 2023 and 2025 (as you can see here). Does this mean I need to re-apply for access to the script? As I've been steadily reviewing drafts again for the past couple of months and have had no issue. I don't want to miss out on any upcoming backlog drives/informative talk page messages about the project/script. – Meena • 23:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

As a new page patroller, you automatically have access and don't need to be on the list. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Collica/sandbox would acceptance or a decline be controversial?

It appears from the draft that the subject of this is in some form of legal dispute with WMF. I would normally say "Archbishop (broadly) equals notability" but I am hesitant. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In general the rule of thumb is doing whatever is fine unless WMF legal explicitly says it's not. (I haven't looked at the article.) Perryprog (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not examined it in forensic detail. I agree, Perryprog, with your comment. I wonder, though, if taking either action upon this would prejudice any putative legal action for either party, thus I wonder what might be fine to do.

For the present I think that it is fine to choose to ignore this one, certainly for me. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Well the so called "formal appeal" links to their deleted meta userpage. There only other post is to ask for a meta sysop or bureaucrat for intervene and was told nope. An Archbishop may be broadly notable but this is a self important, puffy, high unsourced, non-neutral auto-bio. KylieTastic (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

If archbishops being notable refers to the common outcomes WP:CLERGY section, all that says is arch-/bishops are "typically found to be notable", which I read as a statement of historical fact from past AfDs, not a policy or any sort of binding precedent. They still need to establish their notability like anyone else, it's just that often by the time you get that high up in the hierarchy, chances are you've managed to get yourself noted. (I could also add my own views on the religious types getting any sort of special treatment here, but perhaps I'd better not.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing Hence "broadly" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry @Timtrent, I wasn't having a go at you, but at the clergy. DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing I rate them similar to pro footballers who get an article if they have been on the pitch for 3 seconds. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that this is one of the many Catholic Apostolic denominations (I'm not CathAp but I've got some family background in this, and I wrote much of the Gavin Maxwell article). So the second and third sentences in CLERGY needs to be considered, since there is a big Venn diagram between CathAp, Pentecostal, trad charismatic and assorted premillennialist churches, which then results in some cases with a lot of bishops ("angels" in some denominations) administering to tiny flocks. There is a longer rationale I could write up on this, but I'll spare you. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. User:ChrysGalley and I posted at the same time and are saying almost the same thing. The notability of bishops may depend on the size of their congregations, which may be small churches or large dioceses. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@KylieTastic under those circumstances this all sounds very much a breach of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly if you got named as a defendant for declining a draft it'd be pretty much a guarantee that m:Legal/Legal Policies § Defense of Contributors would apply. Perryprog (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The presumed notability of bishops and archbishops refers primarily to bishops and archbishops of major denominations that are organized into dioceses. Those include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Anglican Communion. They also include Protestant denominations that are organized into dioceses, including Lutheran, and Methodist or Wesleyan. The ordination of bishops of well-established dioceses will normally have been reported on by reliable sources. In the United States, some independent Protestant churches use the title of Bishop for their senior pastor, but are churches, not dioceses. I am aware of at least one clergyman who uses the title of Archbishop, but the Roman Catholic Church considers him to be an excommunicated priest. So whether an archbishop is automatically notable should depend on who considers him to be an archbishop and whether he has a real archdiocese. I am not commenting on the legal issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the excommunicated priest is notable, not because he uses the title of Archbishop, but because the controversy has been discussed by newspapers. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

A Good Faith Mistaken Submission

I would like to mention a good faith mistaken submission. I reviewed a sandbox that was marked as submitted, moved it to Draft:USL Super League Player of the Month, and declined it as not having any independent sources. The submitter commented on their talk page that it had only been a draft and they wanted someone to look at it, and they planned to add independent sources as they continued work. I was puzzled, and asked. It appears that the submitter thought that submission was a request for informal comments rather than a request for review.

This seems to be a case of no harm, no foul. We, as the reviewing community, may do well to be aware that there will be such submissions occasionally. The author and the reviewer in this case treated each other with respect, and that may be what matters. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Dargah Ustad E Zaman Trust

Hello, Earlier this Draft:Dargah Ustad E Zaman Trust have been rejected and deleted. Draft has been restored upon my request. Now I have added some more reliable references and tried to improve this draft. I want it to submit it for review. Could you please help me because submit for review option is not appearing. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

It appears that when you requested that this draft be refunded, User:KylieTastic restored it exactly as it had been before it was deleted, including the record of resubmissions and the rejection. This raises a question of how much of that history should be in a draft that is undeleted after rejection and deletion. However, I saw the submit for review option, and have submitted it for review as the author. Is the submit for review option only seen by AFC reviewers? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

An editor User:Meadowlark removed the review from that draft and left this message, "Rejected is the end of the line; you must appeal to the rejecting reviewer if you have significantly improved the draft". I have already sent a message to the editor who had rejected it but did not receive any response. I have now added independent and reliable sources to this draft. But even now people are commenting on this draft that the sources are not reliable and independent. Please help me. All the sources I have added are from Indian independent news agencies. BrownCanary61 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@BrownCanary61: the sources may be independent etc., but none of them provide significant coverage of the subject, and therefore contribute nothing towards notability per WP:ORG. If these are the best sources you can find, then this organisation is not notable enough to justify an article. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What to do if the nominator is blocked from editing?

A draft I am reviewing was submitted by a nominator that was later indefinitely blocked from editing. I'd publish the draft otherwise, but wanted to know if there is a best practice in this situation. Jcgaylor (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jcgaylor why were they blocked and can you please provide a link to the draft/article title? S0091 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is the article. The user was blocked for disruptive editing, mainly involving alleged and undisclosed AI usage. I've checked the draft across multiple AI checkers, and did not find anything. Jcgaylor (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

shrugs If the draft is decent, as long as it's not a sock block I'd accept. The current status of an editor doesn't really factor in to a draft they wrote in the past. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good; thank you. Jcgaylor (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but this was an edge case, and asking for advice was a good idea. In this case, there was reason to be cautious about any submission by that editor, who was banned for various reasons including using artificial intelligence. This meant that it was important to review the draft, and in particular to compare the text of the draft to the references. The current status of an editor doesn't affect a draft except sometimes to require a more careful review, which was done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Draft and Extended-Confirmed Restriction

I am reviewing a draft, Draft:Rebwar Taha, which I think has been submitted in violation of Kurds and Kurdistan sanctions, which are a topic subject to extended-confirmed restrictions. The submitter is a completely new editor, and so probably does not know that they are not permitted to edit in this area. Is there anything in particular that I should or should not do about this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

{{db-gs}} typically applies to these from my understanding. Other people can make the article/draft if they meet criteria (EC). – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 03:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

A "new" AI cheattrick for early reviews

It has started creating review requests with very old dates in the template, way before the draft was first created! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 17:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. This doesn't have to be the work of artificial intelligence, and sounds like the result of human deviousness. I have a question about how reviewers should deal with this trick. Should we issue a warning to the submitter, nominate the draft for MFD because of bad faith, or both? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just change the date! I might review it if the fancy takes me. Looking at the content, it appears usually to be AI generated, thus I presume the template is as well.

MFD and drafts is doomed to failure (0.99 probability). Warning the submitter is almost certainly without value. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for review: Draft:Optical Perspectives Group, LLC

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

---

Hello reviewers,

I would appreciate a review of my draft article Draft:Optical Perspectives Group, LLC. The draft has been revised for neutrality and now includes independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability, such as:

• Peer-reviewed NASA JATIS paper (Roman Space Telescope, 2025) referencing OPG’s CaliBall calibration tool.
• Harvard University research (Beck Lab, 2023) citing the Point Source Microscope in metalens characterization.
• Independent commercial listings from Edmund Optics and Armstrong Optical.
• Industry references from Optics.org and Opli.net.

The article follows WP:ORG and WP:GNG, and all sources are third-party and verifiable. If an optics-knowledgeable reviewer is available, I would be grateful for feedback or acceptance.

Thank you very much for your time and for your volunteer efforts in maintaining the AfC process!

~~~~ Reparks42 (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reparks42 This is not the correct venue. Also reviews are not performed on request. If oyu have a question about thye draft unrelated to requesting an early review please use WP:AFCHD where reviews are also not done on request 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Submission template seems broken

Hello, a few hours I ago I submitted the following draft Draft:/v/ but it seems the template is broken for some reason (perhaps the title is the cause?), as it doesn't resgister properly within the AFC submissions. Thanks in advance for the help! NeoGaze (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

{{AfC submission}} categorizes the draft using [[Category:{{AfC date category|ts={{{ts|}}}}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]. The problem is that when the draft's title ends with a slash, {{SUBPAGENAME}} is the empty string, which is not a valid sortkey. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank for the explanation. I assume there's nothing that can be done, right? NeoGaze (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

We could move the draft to just v and put a not eon it if accepted it should be accepted to /v/ KylieTastic (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The draft can be still seen through the other categories, so I don't think that's needed, but thanks for the suggestion! NeoGaze (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just put in an edit request that'll fall back to the full {{PAGENAME}} if the subpage name is empty. It'll be a little silly for drafts that end with a slash in userspace, but it's just the sort key, so it's not a big deal. Perryprog (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated NeoGaze (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a use for the {{correct title}} template as a hatnote. I have inserted the hatnote. However, I can't the draft to Draft:v because that title has been salted in draft space due to previous misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the help too! I have moved the draft to Draft:V (imageboard) for the time being NeoGaze (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

CSD U5 has been repealed

"CSD U5 has been repealed. It has been replaced with U6 (procedural deletion of some previously U5-eligible pages) and U7 (a much narrower reworking of U5). Please see those criteria to determine if either applies." 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:07, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy link to discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_deletion#RfC: Replacing U5 with a primarily procedural mechanism qcne (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. I have left a request for Twinkle to be updated to reflect this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for review – Draft:Eagle Star Films

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

---

Hi! Could someone please review my draft Draft:Eagle Star Films

The text has been carefully edited for a neutral tone. Thanks so much for your time! — User:Andrealvesnyc Andrealvesnyc (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done Reviews are not done on request. Your draft is in the queue to be reviewed. IAmChaos 19:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

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

On WP:AFCREVIEW

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, speedily-deleted or listed for Articles for Deletion, and repeated attempts may lead to consequences

The second paragraph of AFCREVIEW reads paraphrased as once you submit your draft you may not move it to mainspace and must wait until a review is conducted. I don't think this reflects current consensus and is actually counterproductive. It may keep the AfC backlog high and sometimes an article would be better of being discussed at AfD than being stuck in a decline loop. Therefore I propose that that second paragraph should be removed. Squawk7700 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that AFC had the merit to keep cases away from AFD, given that is one of the core process questions. If that is the consensus (and I don't know if it is) then the current text is well worded. Some of the AFD squad comments may be somewhat harsh for a new editor who fails to understand the system. The problem is that AFC has a backlog mechanism and AFD does not have a backlog mechanism (but should in my view). As a one-off anecdote, earlier today I was doing AFC on Directorate of National Markets of El Salvador - this was submitted for AFC quite correctly, and seemingly another editor, other than the submitting editor, moved it to mainspace, who also seems to have put a random and unrelated source in. So it was rightly reverted back to awaiting AFC. Now this was 2-step vandalism, so somewhat separate to your point. :ChrysGalley (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  There's definitely a point to be made, I haven't thought about. So perhaps a rewording would be more suitable, I agree that just relocate our backlog to AfD would not be sensible at all. I'm not sure yet how it should look, perhaps we could add it as an instruction that being taken out of the AfC queue should not be the only reason for a draftification? If a user feels bold and sure enough about their article, and it won't land right at AfD but rather pass NPP, there's no reason to hold them back in my opinion. But of course I've seen the quality of some drafts and they should definitely not be moved into mainspace as that would cost just more reviewer minutes. Kind Regards Squawk7700 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I imagine there isn't a perfect answer. One scenario, though, is that if an editor takes on the "be bold" mantle, they would perhaps know what they are doing, and therefore won't read the wording you highlighted, or won't regard it as an impediment. NPP will (eventually) catch out the exceptions. ChrysGalley (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, the current wording is probably preventing frivolous moves, and people who are knowledgeable will be aware that they can circumvent it. Do you think that there is an issue worth addressing of people (not even necessarily reviewers) moving drafts back, when they would not really be in need of it? I've seen a few cases (the drafts could probably have been draftified anyways) but not enough to say whether it's an issue? Squawk7700 (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  To be honest I've not really tracked this one way or the other, so I don't have a feel on whether this a problem or not. I will watch for this more, from now on. I guess getting the backlog down is the best way forward overall. Greetings to you and yours. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• I would argue against that interpretation. As a note I have put in in quotes at the top of this thread. The text says moving the draft prematurely may lead to a page having things done to it, not that it will have those things done to it. It is meant to discourage rather than prohibit, and thus I see no reason to change the wording. Primefac (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed and thanks for adding the quote. I don't think I considered the actual aim of the section enough, before creating the thread. Based on your reply I take it you don't experience it being used as the sole reason for possibly unneeded draftifications to an extent that would require an info to other editors (I don't have enough experience to tell, just saw it and thought I'd ask around here). Rgds Squawk7700 (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  In a word, correct. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  thanks for the explanation and insight, that sorts it for me :) ~ Squawk7700 (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

FYI: A bug meaning new editors are unable to create pages with external links in them

Per this Phabricator ticket, new users are unable to create new pages directly which contain external links due to a bug with CAPTCHA. They will get no error on clicking Publish page... but it will refresh and nothing will happen.

The workaround is to use Visual Editor or publish a blank draft and then make edits onto it.

I've had two users come into #wikipedia-en-help with this issue when trying to make new Drafts, and there's been a couple of posts at the Teahouse about it. qcne (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I was going to make an (extremely funny) comment about what a crying shame that would be before I realized that that also includes external links in references.

Unhelpful memeing aside, can we put up a namespace editnotice in the meantime? If edit filters are still triggering, that could work too, but that's a bit harder to set up quickly and test. Perryprog (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

G15 speedy notices on user talk pages

Sorry, I know this isn't an AfC matter as such, but I'm hoping someone can signpost me.

I've noticed a few times recently that when speedying a draft with multiple reasons, one of which is G15, the notice that gets posted to the user's talk omits the G15. For example, I deleted User:Douglasoda/sandbox for G11 + G15, but the notice at User_talk:Douglasoda#Speedy_deletion_of_User:Douglasoda/sandbox only mentions G11.

And just now, I witnessed a different but possibly related issue: I speedied User:Mitwaly/sandbox also for G11 + G15, but the notice at User_talk:Mitwaly#Speedy_deletion_of_User:Mitwaly/sandbox is instead for G11 + U5.

Any idea where I should report this, and/or what the problem might be? Or am I just missing something obvious? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

WHich script are you performing speedy deletions with? CoconutOctopus talk 09:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Twinkle. You reckon that's where the gremlin lurks? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Most likely. This thread seems to indicate it was implemented, but with the new U6/U7 split from U5 something might have gotten mixed up on the backend. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Seems to be already WIP: Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#G15_doesn't_tag_article_creator? and [1] -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Shows you what I get for stopping at the first relevant section... Primefac (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing. Please try doing 1) Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences -> Notify page creator when tagging with these criteria -> tick checkbox -> save and 2) Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences -> Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria -> tick checkbox -> save, and see if that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've got everything (except R2/R4/X3) ticked in both sections already. But I'll try the old 'turn it off, and back on again' trick with the G15 box. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that helped. I've just deleted Draft:BrioGolf.ca as G11 + G15, and the talk page notice says G11 + U5. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I was able to reproduce the bug. After step debugging, I see that Twinkle is writing {{subst:db-deleted-multiple|1=NovemBot|2=G11|3=G15}} ~~~~, which is correct. So the bug is somewhere in the code for the template {{Db-deleted-multiple}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• I made this edit to the template. Now {{subst:db-deleted-multiple|1=NovemBot|2=G11|3=G15}} ~~~~ shows G11, G15, and U5, instead of G11 and U5. So that's an improvement.
• I will post in some spots and see if I can get some template editor folks to fix the "U5 is always displaying" bug.
• I added a line to the Twinkle work instruction for creating new CSDs to update this template, since it basically needs to be manually updated every time we add a CSD.

Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, the template is fixed. This should be all  Fixed now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Long waiting AFC drafts (>2 months) 2 November 2025

There are a few drafts that have now gone past the 2 month waiting time, which I would normally process but they are on topics that I best not review (celebs and cricket basically) - so could another reviewer kindly consider them?:

Draft:Kerala Cricket League  Done SnowyRiver28 (talk) 08:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:James E. Kenward (actor)  Done hat tip: Qcne

Draft:Imran Khwaja (cricket admin)  Done hat tip: Taking Out The Trash

Draft:Jenna Didier (I made some edits to this article, artist)  Done Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Jonnel Policarpio (basketball player)  Done Theroadislong (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

(I had a bruising experience recently with an article going from AFC to AFD in under a week, due at least in part to the shifting sands of GNG and multiple SNGs, so I'd rather not handle any more sports personalities unless it's rock solid ANYBIO or a very obvious decline).

ChrysGalley (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley When we accept borderline drafts we can expect some of them to be sent to AfD. The key to this is to remain neutral at the AfD, or, if we have made a real error, to say so quietly and briefly. Please never let it affect you. AfD on borderline cases shows we are doing our job.

I have not delved into the history of this draft you mention, nor will I. You know what was in your mind when you accepted it, and I refuse to second guess you.

If called upon to comment at the AfD I use this style of wording:

I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer.

I hope this helps your bruises. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Timtrent and I certainly enjoyed your supportive words. There were a heap of complexities outside my control on this article, so it wasn't any one person's "fault", let alone mine, but it was annoying to spend a long time on the issue and then 3 days later it's in AFD, but I guess it goes with the parish. It was more to do with what I see as inconsistencies on sports notability and within sports notability. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley I think if a footballs spends under 3 seconds on the pitch in a qualifying game they get an article. I choose to let another reviewer make ot so, though! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:02, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Problem submitting draft: Club HKT Limited on English page

Hello, I'm a new editor. I have prepared a draft for Draft:Your Draft Title but I'm encountering a technical issue. When I click "Publish changes", the page just returns to the edit mode with no error message. I've tried previewing, waiting, and different browsers without success.

Could a patroller or experienced editor please help me by:

• Either checking if there's a technical block on my account/IP,
• Or directly importing the draft text from my user page (if I place it there)?

Thank you for your assistance! 可樂走冰12345 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

可樂走冰12345, it's not your fault—it's a known issue that just started recently. If you create it as initially blank, it should work, and you should be able to edit it from there. Perryprog (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! It's works! 可樂走冰12345 (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Note added to Wizard

Just a note on the above, I've added an ombox to WP:WIZARD which will hopefully cut down on the number of times people struggle with this. Primefac (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting review assistance: Draft:Curtis Matsko

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

---

Hello! I would like to kindly request assistance regarding Draft:Curtis Matsko. I have submitted the draft for AfC review and left multiple notes on the draft talk page (October 13, 20, and 27), but it appears that the draft has not yet been picked up or tagged for review.

The article is supported by multiple independent and reliable sources (Forbes, ValiantCEO, Growth Think Tank Podcast, Startups with Stu, etc.) and follows neutrality and notability guidelines under WP:BIO and WP:ORGCRIT. There is no promotional language, and no COI.

Could someone please help with placing the AfC review tag or reviewing the draft? Thank you very much for your time and help!

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Curtis_Matsko Servinemilio (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Servinemilio Submitted for review. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Marriott promo campaign

Must be some sort of corporate edit-athon going on, a lot of drafts coming through on SE Asian (mainly Indonesian, some Malaysian) hotels from the Marriott group (Marriott, Westin, Sheraton). They're all promotional, so far I've not seen any that demonstrated notability, and at least some are AI-generated. The problem is, they've all been created by different users, and they all make the same mistakes, so we're having to decline for the same reasons over and over. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft review request – Stefano Bertelli

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

---

Hello,

I am preparing the English draft of the article about Stefano Bertelli. The draft is available here: User:Stefanobertelli1981/sandbox.

I have declared my conflict of interest on my user page. Please review the draft for possible inclusion.

Thank you. --Stefanobertelli1981 Stefanobertelli1981 (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Stefanobertelli1981 This page is for discussion of the operation of the Articles for Creation process, you should use the AFC Help Desk for inquiries related to a draft- though requests for review aren't generally honored- you should use the submission process via the article wizard. Please see the autobiography policy; Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell about themselves. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I have placed the draft at Draft:Stefano Bertelli and added the submission information. 331dot (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Two Copies question

Sometimes an originator creates two copies of a submission, one in draft space and one in article space. I have always declined the draft with a reason of -exists- and specified the title in article space as the existing title. I almost always enter the templates {{twocopies}} and {{draftintoredir}} in the comments box. I then edit the declined draft and replace it with {{draftshell}}, which redirects the draft to the article. This leaves the article standing, and leaves a redirect from draft space to the article, as if the draft had been accepted. I have very seldom had any problems doing this. However, today it seems that an originator has misunderstood, because they read the boilerplate decline message. The pages in question are Rod Stephen and Draft:Rod Stephen, and it appears that the originator thinks that they have six months to work on the draft, because the decline message for a draft always says that they have six months to work on the draft. Is there anything that I should do differently? (I don't think so, because I have been doing this for years.) Is there anything that should be done differently with the -exists- message, when the originator doesn't really have six months to work on the draft, but can edit the article in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe a slight tweak in your workflow; if they are duplicate, I wouldn't decline the draft, I would just redirect it per the second half of your steps. If someone is creating a duplicate draft (potentially not knowing an article on the same subject exists) then I would decline as you have described above. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:AFC/R

Can I review redirects? If not, how can I? ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 02:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a page with reviewing instructions here. I don't believe it requires AfC reviewing permissions like the draftspace does, but no entirely sure. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong here! sksatsuma 13:52, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Correct. AFCH access is for reviewing drafts, not creating redirects. Primefac (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

[BUG] draft space creation disabled for temp users?

Is creating a new draft in DRAFTspace now disabled with the new accounting system in place for temporary accounts? I'm not able to either use the article wizard or directly create a new draft page. -- ~2025-31118-76 (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-31118-76 This may be what is discussed in #Problem submitting draft: Club HKT Limited on English page. Please let us know if you are seeing something different 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with external links. It looks exactly like as if I tried to create a page in mainspace, where new editors cannot create new pages. If I try to access a redlink DRAFTspace page, say Draft:Acde, the [CREATE] button is missing. If I use the article wizard, it shows the same kind of edit window (ie. show source, read only mode) as if the page were protected. -- ~2025-31118-76 (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

When doing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Acde?action=edit

I get

Permission error

You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason:

• Wikipedia does not have a Draft page with this exact name.
• You cannot create this page. You may need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to start this page.
• Search for "Acde" in existing pages within the Draft namespace.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

• If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function.
• Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
• If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was the page I created deleted?

-- which is exactly the same as if I did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acde?action=edit -- tried to create a page in mainspace

-- ~2025-31118-76 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This has been filed as a bug in Phabricator T409366 -- ~2025-31118-76 (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I wrote a patch and got it code reviewed. Will deploy it within next 24 hours hopefully. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

The bug fix has been applied and appears to be working -- ~2025-31118-76 (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Error on Random Submission button

Hello. When I pressed the "Random Submission" button in the {{AfC status}} template and the button on the backlog drives tab, it links to a webpage stating, There are no items in namespace 2|118 in the Pending AfC submissions?server=en.wikipedia.org category on en.wikipedia.org. Leaving a message in case more experienced reviewers know how to fix the problem. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 02:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

CC Ahecht; I noticed this too, albeit with my bookmark. I think it was a recent backwards incompatible change to the tool, so either the template should be adjusted or that change can be tweaked? Perryprog (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Boo. When someone fixes this, I'd love to know about it. -- asilvering (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire, @Asilvering, @Perryprog: The WMF made a breaking change to how interwiki links to toolforge work, and the response on phab:T409493 seems to be wontfix because they never intended parameters to be passed in interwiki links. It'll take a pretty hefty rewrite of the script to fix this since it's going to have to tell the difference between toolforge turning the ampersands in between parameters into %26 and someone intentionally encoding an ampersand to pass a category such as Texas_A%26M_University. In the meantime, I put a workaround into {{AfC button}}. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Boo, that's unfortunate. But thanks for the workaround. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people § BLPPROD in all namespaces

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people § BLPPROD in all namespaces. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Rodrick Simmons review request

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

---

{{subst:afc review|Draft:Rodrick Simmons}} – Added full album review (Charleston City Paper) + activism profiles (Post & Courier, Holy City Sinner). Meets WP:GNG with multiple independent sources. COI disclosed. Thanks! TerryAnderson1 (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@TerryAnderson1 I assume you are requesting a review. Submitting your draft does that. That is all you need to do, and you have done it. Closing this thread 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Request for neutral review of draft: Ian Phillips-McLaren

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

---

Hello,

I’m Ian Phillips-McLaren, a British photographer, artist and educator. A few colleagues and I have prepared a neutral, well-sourced draft article about my career for Wikipedia. Because I’m the subject, I know it’s best not to publish it myself, so I’m seeking an independent editor who can review the draft and, if appropriate, move it to mainspace.

The draft is located at User:Ipmclaren/sandbox.

The text includes citations from *Studies in Photography*, the Royal Photographic Society, BBC ERA archives, and independent press sources such as *The Lancashire Times* and *Northern Soul*.

I’ve followed a neutral tone and Conflict of Interest guidelines. I’d be grateful if an uninvolved editor could take a look and offer any advice or, if suitable, adopt the draft for publication.

Many thanks for your time and help. Ian Phillips-McLaren Ipmclaren (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ipmclaren: you've submitted your draft, so it will be reviewed once a reviewer gets around to it; there is no need to make a separate request here.

Also, this talk page is for discussing the administration of the AfC project. If you have questions about your draft or the drafting and review process more generally, please use the help desk at WP:AFCHD.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Sports season articles

What standards should be applied to drafts on sports seasons (e.g. 2025–26 AC Perugia Calcio season)? I usually accept such drafts if similar pages exist for other years, but I am wondering if its standard practice, like how episode list articles, which are deemed automatically notable if corresponding series has an article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ca: does WP:NSEASONS help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

thanks, I didn't realize NSPORTS had guidance on this. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I have also been approving them if they head towards 2 months, under WP:NSEASONS. There are a couple of things I look out for - firstly does it actually mention the word "football" somewhere at the top - a few don't, so if a reader is on the "random entry" button it won't be readily clear what is going on. And I wikilink things like Serie C. I'm slightly concerned they usually aren't very well linked back to their main team article, but I don't try to fix that. Also one, if not the, main submitting editor is currently under 3 month block so anything that needs a quick check is not going to happen. The source citations usually isn't extensive but we're supposed to ignore that, but last=WhatsApp Alert is an annoying feature. I declined one yesterday because the Lead Section was seemingly absent. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Request second review – Draft:Chrome Angelz RC repeatedly declined as ‘LLM’ though manually written

The draft Draft:Chrome Angelz RC has been twice declined as “LLM-generated.” It was rewritten manually from independent, verifiable sources with inline citations. Could another reviewer please assess on notability and sourcing rather than style? Thank you. 85frankenstein (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Weird red links in the "See also" section are a strong indication of LLM usage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theroadislong (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

85frankenstein, I am fully confident that an LLM such as ChatGPT or similar was definitively used in the creation of the draft. That in itself isn't strictly disallowed, and it's not necessary to lie about it if that is the case. I do agree with the decline, especially considering that you have a reference that has the wrong URL for the page (it 404s) which indicates that you didn't put much work into checking that the statements you make were supported by the citations that I believe ChatGPT (or similar) generated for you. Perryprog (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you VERY much for your clarity… I DID use LLM initially, as I am very new to authoring in Wikipedia, but because the denials lacked the same level of clarity that you provided, I ended up chasing my tail in rewrites and edits. I have since addressed the issues noted and truly appreciate your teaching moment… 85frankenstein (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course—I do agree that sometimes our decline messages can be a little oblique about what is needed, specifically, to be done, so it's a pretty understandable frustration. Cheers! Perryprog (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NSPECIES

Keen on a second opinion here. Normally I accept species submissions ^{(normal referencing & LLM caveats apply)}, even if it's a bare bones stub, because WP:NSPECIES is essentially "if sources say it exists, it's notable".

That said, I have just declined Draft:Alluaudia humbertii – a one sentence submission – for a lack of context, even though it's well sourced, and the species infobox does give it taxonomical context.

In terms of species stubs, how short is too short? Should I have just removed the empty section headings, added the relevant stub template, and accepted? Or was it correct to decline it in this case, despite notability being met? Thanks, Nil🥝 01:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably remove the empty headings, yeah. But, also, couldn't you have just added a sentence or two yourself and then accepted it? Especially since it's clearly well sourced. Silverseren^C 01:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes they are notable, but if they say nothing at all specific to the species they are likely to just be redirected to the genus. In the past I neither accepted or declined as I never wanted to encourage creation of complete non entities. We have had one or more anon editors over the years doing this. They appear to go out of there way to put zero effort in. It really is not hard to add a plant species: add PoWO and GBIF as sources, speciesbox and taxonbar, and a couple or short sentences. The bar for species is so low I consider their behavior deliberate trolling. I notice they have been blocked from draft for a month now, and they were previously indef blocked as an IP. KylieTastic (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @KylieTastic @Silver seren, appreciate your thoughts here! I ended up going back and adding a brief description, location, and etymology, before publishing it to main space. Nil🥝 23:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Participants list (again)

Heya, not my first time making a thread about this. Unsure about how much of a help this is, but here's this:

• Abo Yemen was granted perma-NPR in July.
• Opm581 was granted perma-NPR in August.
• Lijil was granted perma-NPR in September.
• 11WB's username has changed, and it appears that they were granted perma-NPR in October.
• Veko was granted perma-NPR in October.

noping template was used for the links, so this should not be mass-pinging people. Have a nice day AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 05:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

With a user highlighter script + visiting Special:UserRights for each NPP on the list to make sure the grant isn't temporary, we can expand your above list to the following permanent NPPs on the AFCP list: AllCatsAreGrey, AstrooKai, MediaKyle, Mgp28, MWFwiki, SpragueThomson, Abo_Yemen, Opm581, Lijil, Sksatsuma, Veko, Shocksingularity, GreenRedFlag. These should all be safe to remove from AFCP. Will do so now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

@AlphaBetaGamma, to answer your implied question - nah, not really a help, for a couple of reasons. One, it's very easy for admins to identify the NPRs on the list themselves. Two, having people listed as participants when they're already NPRs doesn't really screw anything up so it's not urgent. That's not to say you're being a bother, just, no point in doing this. A simple "hey, I noticed no one's cleared the perma-NPRs out of the participants list for six months" doesn't waste your time and will probably guilt-trip one of us into doing a clearout. -- asilvering (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Next backlog drive

Hi all. I might be little bit early with this, and I am not trying to pressure anyone to consider it. However, since the number of old AfC submissions is increasing day by day. I wanted to ask that when it would be a good time to start the drive. This might help for scheduling. Hope for positive response. Thank You ! Pinging last time coordinators and bot operator @Sophisticatedevening, Bunnypranav, and Ingenuity: Fade258 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps when we reach an even higher number, like 3500 unreviewed draft for example? NeoGaze (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I would support a December drive since the backlog is very close to 3000, and might even reach there by Dec 1. Another reason is that there are no other drives in dec, probably due to the holiday season, but still might be effective. Also support a Jan one if folks want a bit more time. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Not an AFC reviewer but I understand there's a decent amount of overlap between AFC reviewers and NPPers, and NPP has a backlog scheduled for January, so avoiding a January drive to avoid stretching reviewers might be helpful. Perfect4th (talk) 04:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. I guess it is between a DEC25 or a FEB26 then. (Even later is obviously one other option, provided the numbers don't rise) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav, Aggreed on you. But if it happens on Feb 2026 then it will colide with GAN drive. So, Dec 2025 would be a better option – IMO. Fade258 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Perfect4th. You're right. Fade258 (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not as worried about the backlog from a quantity perspective, but definitely potentially waiting 70+ days isn't ideal. I would be on board for a drive in December, though we could push it until February if it's perhaps too late to put one together. – {{u|hekatlys}} ^WOOF 04:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav, @Hekatlys, @NeoGaze, @Perfect4th, @DreamRimmer. What do you think about the next drive? Can we start in December 2025? Hope for positive response. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I would support it. Do we have any volunteers for being the coordinator? I can be one, though open to giving up if others are willing. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:20, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav. Sounds good. What would be the number of co-ordinators and who will provide technical support for the drive? Fade258 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no specific technical requirement, just the task of running the bot. If @Ingenuity is not available, I can run the same code on my bot, though it will require a quicker approval by the BAG, maybe DreamRimmer can help with that? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:49, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav, You're right. Technical support I was talking about is running a bot. I have notified User:DreamRimmer above about the drive. I will step up as a coordinator if there's no other users willing to do so. Fade258 (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I will probably be available if needed, but I have to run the bot manually and may not be able to run it every day (I don't have a desktop to schedule a cronjob with, and I also haven't set my bot up to use Toolforge). Feel free to run the bot yourself if you think that would be easier. —Ingenuity (talk) 05:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be better if run more than once a day, I'll file a BRFA soon. Would you be available for answering a couple questions on discord (or anywhere else) while I'm setting it up? Thank you! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav of course. —Ingenuity (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

BRFA filed ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav. Thanks for BRFA. Fade258 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Very supportive of a drive sooner rather than later, and the next fully available month wouldn't be until April. I'd be willing to pitch in where I can in getting this put into motion. // hekatlys [talk] 03:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hekatlys. Thanks for the feedback. Would you want to become a co-ordinator? If you have free time in December? Fade258 (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Prefacing this by saying my free time becomes more limited in December towards the end of the month due to work, and having not been very involved with coordination in the past. With that said, I'm open to it with some guidance of those who are more experienced. // hekatlys [talk] 03:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Me and Sophisticatedevening were both first timers who did it last time, so it's not hard! That being said, I still there to help, would be interested? I don't know if you'll call me experienced though :P ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 04:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

More experienced works for me. I'm up for it. :) // hekatlys [talk] 05:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav @Hekatlys. Bot has been approved. If there is no any objections then Can I be a co-ordinator for this drive? Fade258 (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course! Appreciate any help. :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Here are some links for things I found/made last time that might help and save time for interested coords:

• this quarry
• mid-drive reminder/morale booster I guess
• this and this for signups.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation/Mailing list (this needs to be trimmed for socks)
• User:Sophisticatedevening/Drivetemplate
• User:Sophisticatedevening/DriveReport

Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 06:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sophisticatedevening. Thanks for sharing. It would be very helpful and saves time of co-ordinators. Fade258 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I have started creating pages for the drive. Please feel free to improve. Fade258 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav and @Hekatlys. When should we add request about AfC drive to display in watchlist? Fade258 (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good, for anyone who may have not received the mass message. // hekatlys [talk] 12:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Done (requested) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia song page question

Draft:Heavy Metal Lover#

Could this be enough for the page to be published? LittleBrittany (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

User:LittleBrittany - There is currently a redirect from Heavy Metal Lover to Born This Way (album). An article about the song was accepted on 9 October 2023. The article that was accepted is very similar to your draft. On 15 October 2023, the article on the song was boldly blanked and redirected to the album, with too little coverage outside album reviews for a separate page. So your draft, if accepted, would be likely to be challenged, and likely to be cut down to a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I should’ve asked if it was possible before making and spending time on it LittleBrittany (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Possible, yes, feel free to spend time on it; I believe Robert's point is more that something similar to what you wrote (quick scan shows similar references) was already redirected. If you can find significant/in-depth coverage of the song, then your draft would probably be worth accepting/moving to the Article space. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thank you! :) LittleBrittany (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be worth having a read of this recent AFD for Mary Jane Holland to understand the current thinking of how AFD !voters are interpreting WP:NSONG.

Essentially, you'd need to demonstrate there's significant coverage of the song (independent of the album) in order to survive a deletion discussion, otherwise it's likely to be turned into a redirect to the album. Nil🥝 20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft and Article on Same Topic

This is a question (again) about the situation in which a reviewer finds that there is already an article on the same topic as a draft. That is a special case of finding that there is already a title in article space that is the same as the title of a draft. Sometimes that is because the article title is the title of a disambiguation page, and the usual action then is to disambiguate the draft. But sometimes a draft is on a topic that there is already an article about. If the draft is the same as the article or a subset of the article, the draft should be blanked and redirected to the article. That also isn't what I am asking about.

If the draft and the article are by different editors, and there is some information in the draft that is not in the article, and some information in the article that is not in the draft, I have always thought that the draft should be declined as -exists- and the author of the draft should be encouraged to add information to the article. So my specific question is what tags should be applied when the draft is declined. I have been in the habit of tagging the draft for Merge To and tagging the article for Merge From. However, a few times recently, I have seen that the Merge tag has been reverted with an edit summary that there was no Merge Discussion in progress and that the merge tag should not be in place.

So my main specific question is: Should I tag the draft to be Merged To the article, but leave the article untagged? Is there some other approach that I should take?

It is not uncommon for a draft to have a title that also exists in article space. There are currently 155 such matches. I am asking in particular about the case where the draft and the article are on the same subject, a subset of the 155 matches. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I think your actions are correct and what should be expected. The only thing potentially missing (and several merge proposals I have seen omit this as well) would be to have a discussion topic opened on the destination Talk page that can be linked with the tag if following WP:MERGEPROP to the letter. If you follow the steps you typically use and are reverted over a missing discussion, I would just open the discussion at that point and re-tag the page linking the now opened discussion with the |discuss= parameter. -2pou (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally I would decline as "exists" with a comment saying they're welcome to integrate information their draft has but the existing one doesn't on their own. Perryprog (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Perryprog - Maybe my question wasn't clear (maybe because I tried to provide too much background information). I agree that the draft should be declined as -exists- with a comment. The question really had to do with whether to tag the draft and whether to tag the article. Also, I haven't reread the guidelines for merge proposals to determine whether they provide for merging a declined draft into an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't—I would let the draft submitter handle integrating them at their discretion. Perryprog (talk) 18:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a lazy attitude, I know, but I don't have the time or inclination to help every draft submitter with the problems I encounter with their drafts. Some things are easy to fix (formatting, ref issues, removal of obvious BLP issues or copyvios) but for something like "you've got extra content, it should be merged into the existing article" I tend to let someone else deal with it. Primefac (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Possible Songs Articles

Any possibilities from one or more of these songs possibly being allowed as an article and not become a redirect? :

Lady Gaga - Mary Jane Holland

Lady Gaga - Babylon

Lady Gaga - Black Jesus + Amen Fashion

Lady Gaga - Donatella

Lady Gaga - I Like It Rough

Lady Gaga - MANiCURE

Lady Gaga - Paper Gangsta

Lady Gaga - Replay

Lady Gaga - Retro, Dance, Freak

Lady Gaga ft. Space Cowboy, Flo Rida - Starstruck

Lady Gaga - Summerboy LittleBrittany (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

LittleBrittany This page is for discussion about the Articles for Creation process itself. If you want to pose questions about possible articles, please use the Help Desk or Teahouse. 331dot (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Short answer: WP:NSONG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about Notability: William J. Doherty

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

---

I’d appreciate guidance on whether an article about William J. Doherty, Ph.D., would meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for living people. He is an American family therapist and academic whose work includes family therapy, medical family therapy, and civic depolarization efforts. He is a cofounder of the national nonprofit Braver Angels and has been the primary developer of its workshops. His books have been published by major presses, and his work has been covered in national media and academic sources. Since I’m the person involved, I know it’s not appropriate for me to draft or edit an article. I’m just hoping to learn whether editors think the available independent sources are sufficient for notability, and, if so, whether someone might be interested in creating a neutral draft. Drbilldoherty (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, this page is for discussing the operation of Articles for Creation. If you want to inquire as to the notability of a topic, the Teahouse or general Help Desk are the best forums. The AFC Help Desk is to inquire about drafts in the draft process. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

hanks for the clarification and the guidance. I’ll take the question to the Teahouse. Drbilldoherty (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Title of Draft Same as Existing Stub

I am reviewing a draft which has the same title and the same topic as an existing stub. I would like to accept the draft, which is longer and provides more detail than the stub; but I know that the stub has non-trivial history that should be kept. The topic is Draft:Silacyclobutane, but I don't think that the question is unique to this chemical compound. I could tell the submitter to merge their changes into the stub to make it a Class C article, but that will shift a lot more work on the submitter, who has already done the work of developing a good draft. Should I do a round-robin and move the stub to a holding place, then accept the draft, then move the stub into draft space and direct it to the article? Is there some way that I can arrange for a history-merge? How should I accept this draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I did a round-robin swap, and have moved the existing stub to draft space and redirected it to the article. The article Silacyclobutane is now in article space. If anyone has any other thoughts on how a similar situation should be dealt with, please let us (me and the reviewer community) know. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Title of Draft Same as Blocking Redirect

I have encountered a situation twice within the past week where an editor (who may be a reviewer or an article creator) wants to accept an article , but there is a blocking redirect at the title of the draft. In each case, the redirect is to an existing article on a person who has the same name as the subject of the draft. In both cases, the editor who was working with the draft made a good faith mistake that would have taken away the ability to navigate to the existing article with the existing name. In one case, the author of the draft tried to blank the redirect, but their blanking was reverted, and they opened a case at DRN. In the second case, the reviewer of the draft tagged the blocking redirect with {{db-afc-move}}, so I inserted a hatnote in the draft, so that the existing name could still navigate to the old article as well as the new article.

Is there something that can be done so that editors don't accidentally remove the navigation path to an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I don't think there's any way to prevent this, any more than there is a way to prevent any other kind of mistake. There are edit filters that track page blanking, though (which is presumably why that first one was caught), and in the second example, one hopes the CSD-reviewing admin is awake at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Fewer inappropriately permissioned pictures

I have long made a practice of following embedded images in drafts to Commons, and checking the permissions, and following one of the processes there to rectify those not appropriate. Often I find a tranche of questionable uploads by the same uploader.

In the last several months I have found far fewer such pictures, yet I know it cannot be that new editors are reading the rules better! This means that either colleagues here do the same as I do and offer them to a Commons process, or that there truly are fewer.

I know it's not in our formal remit to follow material to Commons, but it's immensely satisfying to help clean the place up! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

A note here for any passing readers interested in doing this kind of work, keep in mind that while en-wiki CSDs for "no source" are very strict, Commons is much less strict. See an image listed as "own work" that is really clearly not that person's own work? No need to start a deletion discussion - just speedy tag as "no source". -- asilvering (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Every day is a school day! Thank you. I'd been wondering about that!

After proving you are trustworthy on Commons by earning and applying for a status which I cannot ready bring to mind, there is a set of tools available in preferences there that allow batch nominations to be performed. This makes good work easier. Any admin there can advise you. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's "patroller" you're talking about, but I have managed to avoid learning this about Commons and simply do things one at a time like a rube. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering That's the one. Takes a bit of qualifying for doing the operations manually for a period, but the batch process is well worth it.

However it also lets you make bigger errors and teaches you humility when apologising. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline review of Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou by Wikishovel

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

---

Migrated verbatim to WP:AFCHD#Decline review of Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou by Wikishovel.

Hello, I am requesting a second opinion on the decline of my draft, Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou, by reviewer Wikishovel.

The draft was declined with the reason "Most of the sources are from predatory journals." However, the core sources establishing notability are:

• Official award documentation from the Technical Chamber of Greece (TEE) (a professional body).
• Digital preservation of award ceremony photographs in Zenodo (CERN) and the Internet Archive.
• A professional news announcement from IGI Global.
• An academic award from Emerald Publishing.

The reviewer's reason focuses on a claim about "predatory journals," which does not apply to these core sources. When I asked for specific guidance on what sources would be acceptable, I was told to "let someone unconnected with you... edit your biography" instead of receiving concrete feedback.

Could another reviewer please assess whether the existing sources are sufficient to establish notability, or provide specific, actionable guidance on what kind of additional sources are needed? Thank you. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Anastasios Moumtzoglou. I am another experienced reviewer and concur with @Wikishovel. Your sources which are not from unreliable predatory journals do not establish that you meet our criteria for inclusion. qcne (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Could you please provide specific examples of the types of sources that would establish notability for an academic and health economist in my field? Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliable, mainstream journals or publications. This specifically excludes IGI Global which has been determined to be a vanity-publisher. Evidence of notable, highly prestigious awards. Being the chief editor of a well known journal. Being a named Chair or Fellow. qcne (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. To ensure I follow Wikipedia's sourcing policies correctly, could you please provide a direct link to the official Wikipedia page, policy, or guideline where IGI Global was formally 'determined to be a vanity-publisher'? I have been unable to locate this determination myself. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anastasios Moumtzoglou Plenty of discussions if you search Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. qcne (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, qcne. I have searched Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and related pages. I cannot find any official, consensus-based policy or list that labels IGI Global a "vanity-publisher." These pages contain discussions and opinions, not firm determinations.

My question stands: On what specific, official Wikipedia policy page is IGI Global formally "determined" to be a vanity publisher, as you claimed? If this is not an official policy but an editor's interpretation, please clarify so future submitters have accurate guidance. Anastasios Moumtzoglou (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anastasios Moumtzoglou I see consensus that IGI Global is an unreliable vanity publisher. A simple Google search also finds evidence from other people that concurs. qcne (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Anastasios Moumtzoglou This is not really the venue for this. WP:AFCHD is a far better venue. That is what it is designed and intended for. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Migrated to WP:AFCHD#Decline review of Draft:Anastasius Moumtzoglou by Wikishovel. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Notability decline reminder

Hi all, this is your irregularly-scheduled reminder to please always give a notability-related decline if relevant. If you decline for something else (unreliable sources, verifiability, tone, LLM, etc) but don't give a notability decline, you're setting the submitter up for failure - they can do everything you asked of them, resubmit, and still have it declined again by another reviewer, for a reason they were never even told was important. This is super, super frustrating for submitters and they're just going to feel like we're constantly moving the goalposts on them or rejecting them out of spite. Thank you! -- asilvering (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That is an important rule. I may not have always observed it, and will try to remember it. I think that this problem is most likely when there are multiple issues and the reviewer has to select two of them. If a draft about a company has problems with -corp-, -v-, and -adv-, select -corp- as one of them. Listing all three of the problems is one of the reasons why there is a comment field. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in that one I'd go with corp and adv. The v decline is redundant to the notability decline in that case. -- asilvering (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

AFC reviewing

Hi, when reviewing a draft under AFC, if I find like, one small mistake in the prose's writing or source's markup that, should it be fixed, would satisfy the requirements of the article, should I either:

• Comment on the mistake, in the hopes that a user will fix it, before approving the draft
• Fix it myself and then approve the draft
• Approve the draft and then fix it myself (I'm leaning away from this one), or
• Decline it in the hopes of it being addressed (I don't think this option is a good idea, since I'd rather not stand by on such issues)?

As a reviewer, I kind of feel conflicted on reviewing such edits made by my own hand; if it were a very major edit, then that's one thing to let another reviewer be the judge of, but for more mininal issues, I don't want to just let it be, especially when I know that I can fix it the right way. — Alex26337 ^(talk) 19:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Alex26337, AfC reviewing is for notability (other than spam, attack pages, copy-vios etc): one, two or a dozen small mistakes should not get a decline if the rest shows notability. Fix before or after accepting, or maintenance tag after accepting, or sometimes remove bad parts before or after accepting. Otherwise comment and leave if unsure but only decline on nobility issues. KylieTastic (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't decline a submission for such reasons; you could leave a comment about what needs fixing, but normally I'd just fix it myself (and explain in the edit summary) before accepting. Many new editors are often gonna make mistakes and not know how to fix them themselves without assistance. Nil🥝 19:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Also worth saying: don't feel that doing a very major edit disallows you from accepting the draft yourself – once accepted and moved to main space, it will again be reviewed by a NPP, so waiting for another AFC reviewer is just adding an unnecessary step. Nil🥝 20:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with the others. I have no issues correcting small mistakes or even formatting references sometimes, or at the very least, leaving a comment so they'll be notified of some things to fix. Plenty of different reasons to decline articles, but most of the authors have never written an article before and they'll have a better impression if they get some feedback instead of declines. // hekatlys [talk] 20:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

For copy editing and WP:MOS mistakes, I fix myself if easy and/or (if accepting and moving to mainspace) throw a maintenance tag on it such as {{Copy edit}}. Is good to save a round of back-and-forth declining/commenting if the issue involved is minor. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Even a pretty messed-up draft should be accepted if it meets notability guidelines and doesn't violate core policies. We're not WP:GAN. Just let it through. Tag for cleanup if necessary. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I would go along with the other comments, as someone new to AFC. Personally I tend to fix then approve, but I don't think there is much difference over approve then fix. The Edit Summary does the heavy lifting and after 24 hours I doubt many people would care about the sequence. The decline option I would only use if it's got to the point of not being encyclopedic. I sometimes choose to get into a dialogue with new editors on some articles where addressing a few things would save an article from AFD. David John Barrie is an example of this, the guy had an extinct snake named after him, mentioned in Nature (journal) but it wasn't mentioned in the original draft. But the one potential exception is a WP:BLP with a WP:COI on it, where I would tend to be more demanding, particularly the submitting editors are in some way paid. I did have an experienced editor come down on me like a tonne of bricks because I missed that one media reference (out of a dozen or so) was not sourced, and I didn't put a Citation Needed on it. Even more so autobiographies. ChrysGalley (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@ChrysGalley, no one should be coming down on you like a ton of bricks because you missed placing a cn tag. That's not even required of NPP. If you run into trouble like that feel free to come back here for help or a 3O. Some experienced editors are really harsh on AFC reviewers because they imagine our standards are much higher than they are. We need to stop that when it happens, because it leads to reviewers getting overcautious and declining articles they shouldn't. -- asilvering (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that @Asilvering, I wasn't happy about that at the time (there were other points but that was the main one). So I did push back fairly firmly on them and they partly rowed back on their original comments. But now I see it vaguely as "all part of the training". And yeah, as a point of fact, COI-BLP editors need to be carefully checked. ChrysGalley (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

CC BY 4.0 question

This is a new one for me. Was going through Draft:Wellington City Milk-supply Act 1919, which triggered a high rating from Earwig. The copied content is from the Council's website, which says it's released under a CC-BY-4.0 licence [2].

I've followed Help:Adding open-license text to Wikipedia#Attributing text, but wanted to check that; a) I've done it right, and b) if I should be using the Council's attribution template instead of the WP one (or somehow combine their wording into it)? Nil🥝 23:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nil NZ All looks good to me. Personally I tend to use {{Creative Commons text attribution notice}} within the <ref></ref> tags (see an example here) as I find it's a bit easier to use, but the {{Free-content attribution}} template works as well. The only other thing you might want to do is put a {{uw-unattribcc}} warning on the creator's talk page. MCE89 (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @MCE89, have moved to mainspace now, and will make note of {{cc-notice}} as an alternative for the future. Also good call, have left a note on the editor's talk page Nil🥝 00:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Use of article-space maintenance templates in Draft namespace

Hello,

I’d appreciate your input on a quick question: Is it acceptable to use article-space maintenance templates (e.g. Promotional, BLP, Autobiography, COI) on drafts that are still in Draft space?

I’ve seen mixed practices, some reviewers use them to flag issues clearly, while others prefer to avoid them and leave comments instead. I’d love to know what the general consensus is, especially for cases involving living persons or promotional tone.

Thanks in advance for your guidance! Vodnir (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, best avoided. You'll usually find these on draftified articles (articles that were moved from mainspace to draftspace). In that case, I usually leave them there. Very occasionally I'll add a maintenance tag to a draft to call out something, but it's pretty rare. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Novem Linguae, appreciate your perspective. Best, Vodnir (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a question for User:Novem Linguae. You say that content tags are best avoided, and I agree about most of them. But, if the reviewer is aware that the draft is an autobiography, or otherwise a conflict of interest submission, how should they note for the benefit of future reviewers that a careful review is required because the draft comes from a non-neutral submitter? I know that I can use an AFC comment, but the use of a tag is just easier. My thinking is that those tags are an exception to the rule that content tags are best avoided. I agree that tags about tone or cleanup should generally be avoided, because these issues should be indicated with AFC comments, and can be fixed by editing during the review process. A conflict of interest cannot be fixed by editing, at least not by the original submitter. What do you and others think? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say the autobio and COI tags are not maintenance tags necessarily, and are more for awareness. Personally I find them problematic, because who cares if an editor has a COI if the draft/article is neutrally-worded? To that end, I would argue that the point of AFC is to get neutrally-written articles, so anything accepted should meet the minimum standards of neutrality (i.e. the tags will be pointless). Primefac (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Since the principle is that tags aren't supposed to be a "badge of shame", no one should be using autobio/COI in this way. Though, I agree people do use them in this way. To my great annoyance. -- asilvering (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

There are times when it may make sense to place a maintenance tag on a draft. I would advocate using your best judgment. I tried to phrase my answer to use things like "in general" and "pretty rare" to convey this.

The consensus for COI tags seems to be that the COI tag should be removed as soon as the COI becomes undetectable in the article, i.e. everything gets fixed. I think I added this to Template:COI/doc#The article should have a specific problem a couple years ago after a discussion at Template talk:COI or WP:COIN or something, and no one has reverted it, so I assume that is still the consensus. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As an AFC reviewer I find the use of article space maintenance tags in drafts distracting and annoying; with the exception of the AI/LLM tag. The draft becomes cluttered at the top and I would imagine it feels pretty bitey to the creator. I suggest using the draft talk page to point out COI or AUTOBIO or simply leaving a helpful note on the talk page of the creator explaining, "Thank you for creating the draft, but it needs more sources because it is a BLP; you can find sources by....blah blah" (helpful advice goes here.) (Same goes for COI or ADVERT - a comment can be used on the creator's talk page. Alternatively, a comment can be placed on the draft but the use of the big article-space maintenance tags could be intimidating, and to my mind, are unnecessary. If the draft is accepted by the AFC reviewers, article space maintenance tags can be added later by the NPP reviewers, or any other editor. @Vodnir, I notice that you are adding these tags to a lot of drafts, with all due respect for your efforts, I don't think it is necessary, and think it may scare away new editors. Netherzone (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Netherzone, I fully accept and respect your points, and I will follow your advice. Thank you for your guidance. Just one more question: should we also avoid placing the BLP tag in drafts? Vodnir (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Possibly related: Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Draft maintenance tags –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

One of my requests got declined for no reason

I was asking for Spanish profanity redirects, mainly derivatives for the word "Cojón", but my requests got declined, even though the section shows it. Gregory Khachatrian (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

(Strong candidate for the most cryptic question of the day!)

@Gregory Khachatrian: your two redirect requests (this and this) were declined for reason, namely that they are unlikely search terms. Redirects should be mainly created for search terms which users are actually likely to use. What evidence is there that eg. 'Remojar el cochayuyo' is a commonly-used search term for someone wanting to get to Spanish_profanity#Cojón?

Next time, please ask at the help desk WP:AFCHD; this talk page is for administration of the AfC project. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing in @Gregory Khachatrian defense, the AFC/R talk page redirects here and nowhere is there guidance to ask questions/raise concerns at AFCHD. I do strongly suggest AFC reviewers spend some time at AFC/R and AFC/C because it is a different world than reviewing drafts, does not get the same exposure and the the only requirement is being AC. S0091 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @S0091, I didn't realise that it doesn't signpost to the help desk. Now I know. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Request review for Draft:Akbar Tabari

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

---

Hello and welcome, I would like to request a review of the draft article. Thanks Draft:Akbar Tabari Tib779 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tib779: you've resubmitted your draft, so it will be reviewed in due course when a reviewer gets around to it.

If you have any questions regarding your draft or the review process, please ask at the help desk WP:AFCHD. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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

AFC Questionnaire proposal

demo: https://stuff.msk.wtf/afc-questionnaire-demo

I've been working on a demo for what I think AfC may benefit from - a Wizard, like the one from Wikipedia:File upload wizard, that guides a prospective draft author through a questionnaire that does a small check on whether a subject is notable or not, by requesting the user to find 3 reliable sources(WP:THREE).

What does this solve?

A large portion of AfC drafters are genuinely here to contribute to Wikipeida, but are unaware about the WP:GNG guidelines, causing them to put effort into a draft that eventually gets G8'ed or G11'ed. These editors are WP:HERE to contribute to WP, but seeing their hard work be deleted is a big turn-off for many, and can be interpeted as being rejected. The current AFC rejection message seems like just a band-aid solution, and when they eventually go back to their Special:Homepage that tells them that "Wikipedia editors recommend that you try a few medium and hard tasks first before attempting a new article. Learn more about writing a new article." after your AFC has been rejected just seems to be rubbing dirt in the wound.

By requesting the user to actually find 3 sources, instead of a big block of text about notablility and reliable sources and a whole bunch of other daunting instructions, with HTML tags(eek!), we can challenge draft submitters to put their pen where their mouth is, and prove notablilty hands-on.

Issues this may have

Currently, the demo uses the WP:RSP to categorize what is and isn't a "reliable source", which is, at the very least, a poor choice, as RSP is incomplete, and it says it on the page itself - [RSP is NOT] a representative sample of all sources used on Wikipedia or all sources in existence. I'm still trying to figure out something better. Same with the point system - it's just a band-aid patch that attempts to make up for the many shortcomings that arise from using RSP. Also, there isn't any checking of the sources themselves, so I could put a source about Harambe for my AfC submission about the American crow. If this proposal were to be implemented, there would probably be some sort of client-sided AI summary or something similar that at least somewhat asserts that the source is significant and independent in coverage. (CORS might be an issue here, though)

Anticipated questions

• "What if people try to game the questionnaire?"

  This questionnaire is meant to prevent constructive contributors from wasting effort into creating a denied draft, not to weed out bad-intentioned editors only interested in creating an article about their company and how great it is. Let the bad-intentioned editors create bad drafts and get denied, that's not the point of this questionnaire.

• "Won't using AI for this be too risky?"

  It's all in the air at the moment, and there probably at least a dozen other solutions that avoid using AI and are just as good.

This demo, also, is obviously a demo, and is still missing a lot of polish and glean that would be present if it were to be actually added to Wikipedia. As always, feedback is always welcome. Cheers, monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought we already had WP:Article wizard and {{Best sources}} for this? Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 18:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submission wizard which it was proposed adding to (and is still in limbo it looks like). Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi I wasn't aware of the Submission wizard's existence, but I'll keep it in mind now. My proposal is similar, only it takes place before the draft is submitted, not when the draft is already written and ready to be submitted.

@Sophisticatedevening We do have those, but the apparent wall of text in the Article Wizard is foreboding, and it is really hard to expect every new editor to just stumble upon {{Best sources}} on their own. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I also should make this clearer: This wizard is intended to prevent constructive editors wasting their effort on a obviously non-notable AfC draft, and getting discouraged when the draft is denied, or deleted. It isn't mean't to stop promotional pages, COIs or anything like that- the people who create those pages are usually WP:NOTHERE to contribute to WP, and so preventing them from wasting their effort really isn't a priority. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I had a go at the demo, the first thing that was obvious related to offline sources, which are perfectly acceptable, but the WP:THREE screen does not like. That screen could just be not so well validated, as soon as the AFC reviewer sees it's a junk THREE then notability is unlikely. I would also ask a very specific COI question, making it clear that COI is OK. Maybe even LLM on article text and separately on sourcing, again saying it's OK so long as it is checked.

I do wonder if there is scope for something like this as a "fast track" route: if the subject can be proven to be notable quickly then AFC can quickly wizz through them and in theory use the saved time on articles that cannot realistically be fast track (non English, complex, controversial areas). So off the top of my head, fast track could be for those that can do online THREE in English, no more than 15 sources total, no more than 750 (?) words, not COI, no redirects, no quick translations from non English wikis. ChrysGalley (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be wonderful to have a more structured/guided "wizard" experience available; I also believe there is other work along these lines occurring, including this WMF effort. On a more minor nitpicky note, I'd suggest that the first question needs an "other" option; I, for example, would desire to make an article about a book, and I know people also make articles about movies, TV shows, memes, and other such things. But I am always pleased to see efforts to increase infrastructural support of new editors like this. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I found a glitch in the demo where it treats blacklisted sources such as Infowars as reliable. As for source categorization, in addition to WP:RSP, you may want to use WP:NPPSG, the various WikiProject lists of reliable sources, and the spam blacklists (there are three). OutsideNormality (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! I'll try to update the demo later next week with your feedback, once I can get back to my computer. monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Request for collaboration on Draft:ChessUp

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

---

Hello. I would appreciate help improving Draft:ChessUp, which was declined for notability. The product has multiple independent sources (reviews, press coverage, awards), but I am unsure how to structure them correctly for Wikipedia.

If anyone has time to help expand notability/sourcing and improve the draft overall, it would mean a lot.

Draft link: Draft:Chessup

Thank you in advance to anyone willing to help.Ivara96 (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Ivara96 This page is for discussion about the Articles for Creation process itself; please use the AFC Help Desk to make inquiries related to the draft process, such as what changes you need to make; however, it isn't the place to ask for co-editors; you could try at the general Help Desk, though the odds you will find a volunteer to take up work that you should be doing are low. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I fixed your link, the whole url is not needed. If you are employed by Bryght Labs, that must be disclosed, see WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Am I allowed to join the backlog drive?

Hi! While I'm only a probationary member, I would like to join the backlog drive. Am I permitted to join? Thank you, 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 01:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to help with this. Please feel free to list your name in the participants. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Just wanted to add as far as I'm aware being probationary doesn't actually mean anything for reviewing, you can do anything a non-probationary reviewer does, it's just for the granting admins to keep track of things like how they sometimes grant 1 month trials at WP:PERM/NPR. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricane Wind and Fire You are welcome, as are all reviewers, probationers or otherwise. Strive for quality, not quantity. We all accelerate as we gain experience. Never forget that our objective is to accept a draft if, in our own opinion, it has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process.

This means that, sometimes, our view is challenged by our peers, and by the community as a whole. That is a good thing. It means that opinions are allowed to differ and we can correct our course when we need to. Never be afraid to accept a borderline draft, and be unaffected emotionally if one of 'yours' is sent to AfD.

When a draft I have accepted is sent to AfD I remain strictly neutral, sometimes making a statement to that effect. The community is better as a whole than any of us are as individuals. Even if it isn't, sometimes, we still have a duty to trust consensus, especially when we disagree with it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 09:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Limited Information

Sometimes a draft has the phrase "There is limited information about …" something, such as reception of a film. An example is Draft:Agnishapath, which says There is limited information available regarding box office performance. I am inclined to think that this phrase was provided by artificial intelligence, since a human simply wouldn't mention the lack of information. My question is whether I should mention that concern in declining the draft, when I am declining the draft anyway. Will it be useful to raise that concern for future reviews? We want to do everything that we can to keep Wikipedia free of AI slop, but is this a valid concern in this case? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. Generally if there truly is "limited information", it should be left out, unless that limitation itself is notable in it of itself. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are stating the same concern or different concerns. I think that a human will not mention something about which there is limited information, so that the mention of the limited information seems to me to be a "tell" that an LLM has written the draft. Is that what you are saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, such mentions of "limitations" are included in WP:AISIGNS, but it is not a slam dunk tell. I (human) also tend to note the limitations of sources if they are vague, conflict with each another, etc.

In general, it is only a tell if the article makes sweeping, impossible to prove claims about such information not being avaiable anywhere, not limitations of individual sources. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Deeper Mystery

Sometimes a draft has language that reads as if it was copied from a blurb. In Draft:Villain (2018 film), the Plot section says: His relationships with Ria and Sneha draw him into a deeper mystery as hidden motives and the truth behind dual identities begin to surface. I am reasonably sure that that was copied from an ad for the film. It isn't encyclopedic. Should I express that concern, and how should I express it?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I usually express these issues by describing "encyclopedic tone" which is meant to be dispassionate and so on. Plot sections should be plot summaries, not blurbs, and that's from the manual of style. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Probably worth running a cv check as well. If it's straight from a blurb, it should be removed and {{revdel}}'d. Primefac (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I did run a copyvio check, and didn't find a match. It still reads like it was copied straight from a blurb, but a blurb that isn't known to the copyvio checker. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Questionable References

In a biography of a living person, the references must be in-line citations, that is, footnotes. The references for other topics, such as films, are not required to be footnotes. However, I have looked at two drafts on films where all of the references are bunched at the end, Draft:Agnishapath, and Draft:Villain (2018 film). Am I allowed to take note of this questionable form of the references? I have declined both of these drafts for -film-, that is, failure to meet film notability (and am following the rule stated above to list a notability reason when there is a notability reason). My concern isn't exactly one of the listed decline reasons, because it isn't exactly -v-, because I haven't checked the references. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

References like this often show up from new editors who don't know how references work. The best thing to do is point them to Help:Introduction and tell them to read the referencing sections and put the references inline properly. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I would leave a note, but unless the lack of notability is really obvious it's probably still worth looking at the references; it's worth adding v as a decline reason if the references are subpar. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Notability review request: Julian Lerner

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

---

Hello, and thank you for your time.

I would like to request an independent review of whether actor/musician Julian Lerner meets the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia biography under WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, and music notability guidelines where applicable. I am connected to the subject, so I will not create or edit the article myself; I am only providing reliable sources for consideration by uninvolved editors.

Below is a list of *independent, secondary, reliable sources* providing significant coverage of his acting and music career:

• People Magazine – feature on Yes Day (interview and film coverage)
• People Magazine – cast list and coverage for Zombies 4: Dawn of the Vampires
• TMRW Magazine – long-form profile describing him as an actor/musician and discussing his songwriting and releases
• Popternative – interview covering both acting and his original music
• The Knockturnal – feature and interview on his role in Zombies 4 and his music work
• Naluda Magazine – interview focusing on his recurring role in The Wonder Years
• Courageous Nerd – exclusive interview about his character and work on The Wonder Years
• Visual Tales Magazine – profile covering his acting background and creative work
• The Nerds of Color – interview tied to his performance in Yes Day
• BroadwayWorld – coverage of his stage work and early career

Acting roles supporting WP:NACTOR:

• Nando Torres in the Netflix film Yes Day (2021)
• Brad Hitman in ABC’s The Wonder Years (2021–2023)
• Ray in Disney Channel’s Zombies 4: Dawn of the Vampires (2025)
• Additional appearances in Happy!, Monster Summer, Pottersville, and various voice roles

Music career supporting WP:GNG (and aspects of WP:NARTIST):

• Verified Spotify artist with commercially released singles, including "Dead End" and "Velvet"
• Official Artist Channel on YouTube Music
• Music-focused coverage in TMRW Magazine, Popternative, and The Knockturnal
• Interviews discussing his songwriting, production work, and multiple releases
• Performances associated with major studio projects (e.g., Zombies 4 soundtrack involvement)

These sources appear to demonstrate significant independent coverage across both acting and music, consistent with Wikipedia’s notability standards.

I am not requesting immediate article creation—only an independent assessment by uninvolved editors.

Thank you very much for your time and review. ~2025-35929-50 (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

This page is for discussing the operation of the Articles for Creation process; I would suggest that you use the Teahouse to pose your questions.

I will quickly say since almost anyone can post music online, that doesn't contribute to notability. Neither does having a YouTube channel(as, again, almost anyone can create one). Interviews don't contribute to notability as they are not independent sources. The relevant guideline is WP:BAND, not NARTIST. (I get that many musicians call themselves "artists" but we are a little more specific) 331dot (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are associated with the musician, you may create a draft article and submit it for review, as long as you declare your association. You are more likely to get the article sooner by submitting a draft than by just providing a list of sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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

New LLM policy

I have just come across this policy guideline at ANI: Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models, which I find relevant to reviewing drafts and imagine others will find helpful.

Can we incorporate the policy into AFCH? The decline dropdown has an "ai" option; it is a "reason" parameter for decline/comment (see here: [3]). But I feel explicitly referring to the policy in the template text, as we do for reliable sources and so on, would be the most useful. Drew Stanley (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Drew Stanley. This is a brand new Guideline (not Policy) which was only elevated a couple of days ago. If you check the Talk Page there is a lot of discussion going on to change it/expand it's scope. I think we need to wait until the Guideline is a bit more stable before we do anything at AfC. qcne (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I see - thanks for the clarification on guideline. It would still be a relevant link, though, for AfC, since the location of the guideline will still be that page, right? Drew Stanley (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd support adding a wikilink to that guideline to the AI decline at Template:AfC submission/comments. I would do so now but there's been an objection, so will wait and see where this discussion goes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy for you to add it, I just think we need to be aware the guideline is in flux. qcne (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

AFCH Move to Draft foible, and possible solution

Foible

When we use the box im the "Review me" template to move a user sandbox containing a draft of Foo to Draft:Foo the sandbox is left with a redirect. This allows the editor to find their draft again with ease. THat's good.

However, should they edit the old sandbox to create a new draft, one that is later moved to mainspace, the reviewer who performed the original move to Draft:Foo is credited with the creation of the new article (and any prior location of that article).

This means that we keep getting notified with all sorts of things about the new article (or draft, or user sandbox). I have just discovered I am the proud creator of Hans Georg Borst, of which I had never heard previously.

Obviously this foible is created by Mediawike software and the chain of ownership, and is useful in almost all cases. This case? Not so much

Possible solution

A technical solution would be for our script to initiate a move, delete (or offer for CSD) the old sandbox, and also inform the creating editor of the new location of their draft.

If this is feasible and sensible, please would a technoguru consider how, whether, and when this might be done?

It's not urgent, only borderline important. I rate it as 'nice to have'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I ran into the issue of miss-attributed creatorship many years ago but few others seemed bothered so I just stopped moving user-space submissions to draft-space. It also upsets some real creators if they have spent a long time making an article from scratch for then some random editor to be labelled as the creator. Ideally I believe the creator should always be the first non-direct revision rather than just the first revision. However, the 'creator' is not stored against the page table, and the revision table does not store if it was a redirect so it would be expensive to have to go to the first revision and then parse each one and if a redirect step to the next. A partial mitigation is a bot to move user-space submissions to draft but that only stops movers being assigned misleading creatorship but does not fix making the actual article creator not being credited. KylieTastic (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I fall in the camp of "who cares" when it comes to the "first editor" (and have blocked more than a couple of editors who have been hell-bent on breaking the rules to be the page creator), but I am firmly a believer in leaving a redirect when moving a /sandbox into the Draft space, specifically because of those issues mentioned above. If it means I am occasionally tagged because "a page [I] created" is nominated for deletion... meh. I don't think we need to change our entire workflow just for the odd chance that someone reuses their /sandbox and we as reviewers get notices about it. Primefac (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hotel notability

We've seen quite a few drafts on hotels lately, including but not only that recent Marriott campaign. I've declined most of them on the basis that the sources don't establish notability, and I was just about to do so with another draft, but decided to pause and come here for a sanity check.

My thinking is that hotel reviews don't count towards NCORP, because they're almost never independent. Some actually say that the reviewer received a free stay, others don't say it but it's probably still the case. Many have links for booking a room, sometimes with special offers, etc., so they're clearly part of some affiliate programme. They also often have photos and other content provided directly by the hotel. And then there are those "30 spa resorts in Africa you should try" type 'articles' where I'm pretty sure the 'journalist' just put out a tender and the 30 highest bidders got in.

I'm talking here about hotel reviews only, not product reviews more generally. And I mean bog standard reviews appearing in travel guides, travel blogs (like this), travel sections of otherwise-RS mainstream media (eg. The Sunday Times Travel Magazine), as well as a myriad of 'lifestyle' websites (like this) where you really can't tell whether they're fish or fowl. I'm not referring to actual journalism, where someone has properly investigated, say, a hotel's conversion into a carbon-negative, water-conserving eco-something, or written factually about the history of a genuine landmark like Claridge's or Pera Palace.

Is it fair to summarily dismiss reviews like that, or should one dig deeper and thoroughly evaluate each source (which are typically cited by the dozen!) to somehow try to gauge its independence? Or is there more to this, and if so what else should I be considering? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say it's probably OK to lean towards excluding the review unless there's some strong reason to expect it to meet the criteria. I find it somewhat dubious those blogs even meet RS. Same thing with listicles, it would have to be a really special listicle to contribute to notability. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm one of those dreadful business people who has visited (approx) 2,000 hotels, so I'm often reaching out for reviews. And the key problem isn't so much bias/affiliation but that very few such reviews have the academic rigour of the sources that would be needed at AFC level. It's a journalist, often a freelancer, on a one night freebie, they don't necessarily have a feel for the market overall, and there is limited editorial review of their output. Some freebies offered by hotels do not actually include an overnight stay, the journalist returns the next morning for a breakfast. There are some exceptions, some newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and, um, the Daily Mail have semi-anonymous hotel inspectors, and they will unquestionably print the good, bad and the ugly in great detail but still on an anecdotal basis. Michelin would be another exception, where their trained inspectors typically visit 10 hotels a month, they get paid whatever they write up, but there isn't much text there. Travel sections of newspapers have to cover a lot of acreage for the contingent advertising, so freelancers do WFH trawls of the internet, looking at TripAdvisor - 30 spa resorts, none visited by that journalist. Ironically the only sort of places where the reviews could have gravitas would be on specialist social media (such as Flyertalk, of which I am a moderator), since any rubbish (or LLM) will be rapidly called out by another traveller, and these obviously can't be used here. Some publications will have content within a review which may give reliable evidence for specific facts ("Hotel X used to be called Hotel Y until Brand Z took over the franchise in 2010"). So yes, unless there is something clearly independent about a particular article, as an exception to the norm, I would not as a default regard a hotel review as RS. And that certainly includes self-published blogs, which have very limited editorial review. ChrysGalley (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Requesting Review Attention for “Draft:Clove Dental”

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

---

Hello reviewers,

I hope you're doing well. I recently submitted Draft:Clove Dental for review. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines with multiple independent reliable sources (national news coverage, business articles, industry reporting).

Since the draft is significant and well-cited, I kindly request if a reviewer could please take a look when possible.

Here is the draft link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clove_Dental

Thank you very much for your time and support. Kunal.anand2210 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kunal.anand2210: you submitted this literally 10 min ago. As you can see on top of the draft, it says reviews " may take 2 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 2,821 pending submissions waiting for review." We don't take fast-track requests, and in any case not on this page; please put any further questions to the AfC help desk WP:AFCHD. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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