Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalk pageSubmissions
Category, Sorting, Feed		ShowcaseParticipants
Apply, By subject		Reviewing instructions
Help deskBacklog
drives
Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project!
AfC submissions
Random submission
3+ months
4,464 pending submissions
(refresh)
Shortcut


Skip to top
Skip to bottom

AfC unreviewed draft statistics as of June 01, 2026


Draft review

[edit]

Hi, I am reviewer at AFC and created a draft Draft:Atal Canteen scheme, can I review it myself :) or leave it there until reviewed. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a COI, AfC is completely optional for experienced editors – you're more than welcome to move it to mainspace yourself if you believe it's ready :) nil nz 11:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand, I will move to mainspace. ✓ortexPhantom (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VortexPhantom The article needed some copyediting and grammar fixes, so I did that. If English is not your first language, it might help to have someone briefly review your articles for grammar and English phrasing. It wasn't bad, but it needed a few tweaks. I didn't check the references, but I trust that they are good. Thanks. David10244 (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your copyediting, you are correct my English isn't first language. Coming to sources, I have collected only reliable sources, which you can only check by visiting WP:RS/P and nothing down the refs I added in article. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 03:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

Feel like something that'd be helpful for reviewers is if submitters were required to write a brief explanation of how their article meets notability requirements AND if there was a checklist they'd have to manually check the boxes that certifies they understand the most important aspects of notability/NPOV/COI etc. The checklist would provide links to each policy.

These should be written/presented as succinct as possible, so that it's basically only a minute of labor on part of submitter. Shouldn't be cumbersome. The explanation would appear to reviewer; this would help direct reviewer's attention to like e.g. the three pieces of SIGCOV that prove notability or like the proof that some academic meets NACADEMIC.

A lot of the time it's annoying for reviewers to dig through valid uses of primary sources or press releases etc to find the 3 pieces of SIGCOV that push an article over the line. If the submitter identified those for us it'd help somewhat. Also the presentation of a checklist and forcing people to write out/think about what notability is I think would help. grapesurgeon (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think notability is probably too complicated for this to work. Guidelines such as WP:GNG are too vague (compared to how it actually works). The various WP:SNGs are too specific, with very uncommon SNGs mixed in with common ones, adding a lot of noise. These two things make it hard to teach beginners how notability works, and hard to trust beginners to be able to accurately judge notability. Therefore, even if you make a checklist that has the item "My draft contains 3 sources with significant coverage", I think beginners would misjudge their sources more often than not, thus not really improving the situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hold similar reservations about this plan (which in fairness, sounds like a good idea) based on my own past experience with WP:THREE. When asked for the best refs on IRC, helpees will invariably give me a half-dozen garbage sources. While it might not be difficult for the draft submitter to write up, reading an extra paragraph or two of pseudo-abstract and checking three potentially-not-useful references will likely just add to the review time. I would rather skim the draft and the sources and make a judgement based on that.
Conversely, this could potentially harm people who make a poor argument for what would otherwise be a well-written draft, because it might unduly influence the reviewer (especially if they assume that the three best really are the three best, even if they're not). Primefac (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From time to time, I create a topic on the talk page called significant coverage and list the two or more pieces of sig cov that were the basis for the acceptance. I think it's a good practice in the event the sig cov is inadvertantly removed and the article is ever nominated for deletion but I don't know how widespread a practice this is. Mme Maigret (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Template:draft categories

[edit]
Tracked in github.com
Issue #256
Resolved

The script should not insert colons into category links if they are in a block of {{draft categories}} because that defeats the purpose of that template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give an example? I feel like this issue was dealt with a while ago but we've had a few weird regressions lately. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The ticket is still open, so it probably hasn't been fixed yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it occasionally after I placed {{draft categories}} in articles. This prompted me raising it here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity checking myself

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia:Help desk § Questions about WP:NOTDATABASE

So the other day I declined a draft named Draft:All Known Little Ships of Dunkirk for being database-like. The draft contained pretty much every single little ship that participated in the Dunkirk evacuation. The vast majority of these ships had absolutely no information on them, and since the page was almost a thousand rows long, it was heavily lagging my PC despite running a gaming CPU with 16gigs of RAM.

For his part, he argues that since this is such an important topic and there is no true "centralized" table already, this provides encyclopedic value. There are other existing pages on this exact topic, such as:

So I was not sure what other new pages are necessary. He argued that his new page would complement the others, so its not a duplicate. Though I've never seen a fork like that before.

Moreover, the topic has been covered by other pages. As I was writing this, I noticed that he copy pasted the entire table into the existing List of ships at Dunkirk, so you can see what I'm talking about. Hell, the article is now the 96th largest page at 512,000 bytes.

I do agree with him that this is provides some form of value, but I argued in the reply that this is not what Wikipedia is about, that we focus on summary-style content.

If anyone has any thoughts, please let me know. He brings up good points in that this does provide value, but again, I'm not sure how to word it in a non-insulting, beginner-friendly way. And if I got WP:NOTDATABASE wrong, then please let me know.

You can see my discussion with him here. EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 23:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that List of ships at Dunkirk is specifically for naval and merchant ships involved in the evacuation. I could see an argument for a List of Little Ships at Dunkirk list that complements both the main list of naval/merchant ships, and the non-list Little Ships of Dunkirk article? nil nz 23:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see the same, but I guess my concern is whether every single ship should be included on Wikipedia. I argued that we should include the ones we have more information about (like at least the ship type), omitting the ones for length's sake that we don't know anything about other than their name.
This is more so of a question about WP:NOTDATABASE - what value does including hundreds of ships with no information add? Pages like Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election exist and contain excessive amounts of raw data, which most definitely would make them a database, so where do we draw the line? I don't want to get it wrong, especially not in front of a newer user who may take my words at face value.
I'm inclined to give him a pass and let him publish the page, because I see the value in the information, but:
  • huge length
  • details lacking
  • page relies heavily on one source (the org is one dedicated to these ships, but of course they could make mistakes).
EatingCarBatteries (contribs | talk) 00:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 6 May 2026

[edit]

Please add TenshiBot to the list of bots, relevant BRFA: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TenshiBot 2. For the description, please use the one on it's userpage for the task. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I have added the bot but minimised the description to match the general length of the other bot tasks. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts on user talk pages

[edit]

Lately I'm seeing a lot of users post drafts on their talk page. I decline a draft, and the next thing I know the user has posted the draft on their talk page replacing all previous contents there. I can't remember seeing this before, and now it's happening at least a couple of times a week. Wonder if some AI tool is telling people to do this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't recall seeing that exact sequence of events happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if the latest piece of Bad Advice tells people to do that. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a case like this too and I do not think I could review it at all or the script was being otherwise uncooperative. Are we allowed to move the contents to another page for them like from User talk:Example to User:Example/AFCdraft? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, here are two possible scenarios related to this that need to be considered:
  • User has already created a draft (as given in the OP), in which case I would just revert their user talk to the most recent version (or blank the "draft" if other posts have been made since then).
  • User has not posted anywhere else, in which case yes, I would probably move the draft to the draft space (if it's not absolute garbage/nonsense); if there are older user talk page messages that were overwritten they can be split out with a {{histsplit}} request.
Primefac (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to move their user talk draft somewhere else. User talk is for communicating with the user. Maybe drop a note on their user talk with a link to the new location. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Since this particular scenario happens (to me at least) when they have a draft I've just declined, when they then post a copy on their talk I just revert that, and leave them a note explaining what their talk page is and isn't for, and suggest that they carry on developing their existing draft (and even provide them with a link to it, in case they're completely lost). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also happened to me which I posted to TH, after which DoubleGrazing cleaned up, Is it possible to create a abuse filter for preventing posting submission other than draft namespace? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 11:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Action review of probationary reviewer

[edit]

PhilDaBirdMan (t · c · xtools · reviews)

While reviewing new pages, I came across a page accepted by them Kenitra-Marrakesh high-speed rail line this page doesn't meet GNG, then I looked for some more pages, I found:

From here [1]

These articles doesn't meet core guidelines for article but were accepted. Additionally their own draft Draft:Palgum is rejected declined recently. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 13:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

VortexPhantom, am I missing a rejection on that draft? I only see two declines. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are correct, I had to type decline but wrote rejected instead. It's mistake from my side. Thank you for pointing out. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 13:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just glad I didn't miss anything. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I only submitted Draft:Palgum the first time; another editor has been modifying and resubmitting it.
I noticed that List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft already existed after approving the 1940-49 draft, my bad.
Union of Military Poles in Russia cites multiple sources. I don’t know any Polish, but the book sources given seem reliable. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 13:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you checked that Union of Military Poles in Russia, follows WP:V, there is large paragraphs unsourced. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 13:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and it’s all cited. I see no WP:V violations. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 15:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VortexPhantom, what do you mean by "fails WP:V"? I don't see any "verification required" tags, and there are plenty of citations. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have indicated where it's missing verification by [citation needed] and also tagged article. Sorry, for the delay, it should be done at the time when I bought it here. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 03:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add some more articles
Zenon Jachymek many content relies on single source which may not reliable, accepted without cleaning up notablility tags.
Nathan Webb (priest) is nominated for deletion which was accepted. Bangladesh Railway Class 2200 this may not meet WP:GNG, To the Liberators of Rostov relies on a single source.
I can also list more examples, with only 73 reviews they have this amount of inaccuracies, they shouldn't be allowed to continue as afc reviewer.
Regards, PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilDaBirdMan can you clarify on above? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 10:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify how? I don’t get what you’re asking of me. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 14:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's fair to bring up WP:Articles for deletion/Nathan Webb (priest), given the AFD nominator is !voting to keep. Even if it is deleted, the AFD discussion with multiple !keeps suggests it's an edge case, so accepting was inline with WP:AFCPURPOSE.
No comment on the other articles mentioned as I haven't had a chance to look at them in-depth. nil nz 15:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VortexPhantom, it looks like you've just added "citation needed" to basically every sentence that didn't have one, even if there was a nearby footnote? Can you please review WP:V and WP:MINREF? Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure you can give a whole paragraph one ref by sticking it at the end. Usually the ref applies to the whole paragraph or the part of the paragraph between it and the last ref. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 22:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct 100%, however in Union of Military Poles in Russia I have only added cn where it is needed as facts are likely to be challenged. While Union of Military Poles in Russia#Formation in its formation section, it's paragraphs even lack that footnote you mentioned above. Looks like it is translated from another Wiki without proper human review. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 03:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VortexPhantom, did you first check whether that information was in the cited sources? -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible since I can't read Polish language. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 04:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely possible, since the source is online here and Google Translate exists. I have only checked the "Background" section so far, but those citation needed tags were totally unwarranted: everything in that section is completely verified by the cited source. In fact, the article has the opposite of a verification problem -- everything I checked so far is a blatant copyright violation verbatim translation of the source. I will address and revdel the copyvio now. On a closer look it's technically not a copyvio, since the book is in the public domain, so I'll just tag accordingly.
For the future, keep in mind that it's quite common for one footnote to support multiple sentences in a row, perhaps even the entire paragraph. Citation-needed tags should only be applied to an individual clause within a sentence if you've actually confirmed that the cited source doesn't support that clause (and in such cases a "failed verification" tag would be more precise). ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that translation is possible but in my case, translation works for only webpages text, not for text in archive document, it is also possible that I am not following the process correctly. Additionally, I have no experience in handling such translations. I don't have perfect grasp of relevant policies that is the reason I am a trial new page reviewer and probationary reviewer here, hence, I may be wrong in some cases, but not in all. Union of Military Poles in Russia here, the cleanup and discussion, should be done by the reviewer before accepting. I have bring this in good faith to decide whether this reviewer is correctly reviewing in all cases above. Please check all article in whole, not a specific article that's my request. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 06:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest reviewing WP:AFCSTANDARDS. Reviewers should not be declining drafts just because they can't access (or translate) a source. Article clean up is also not a requirement of the AfC process. nil nz 07:07, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We should always try to verify the source whether it supports the claims of articles and determine whether draft's content it is free of copyrights because translation of copyrighted works doesn't allows them use the content legally, it's just a derivative work from original copyrighted material. Even if not part of standard reviewing procedure. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 13:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VortexPhantom, I think you need to be focused on writing and maintaining content for now while you learn wikipedia's policies and expectations. Feel free to reapply for AFC/NPP after several months' more content experience. -- asilvering (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Can you please specify what policies or guidelines I have misunderstood, I have reviewed several pages and drafts yet I don't think I have done anything wrong that be enough to revoke my NPP/AFC? If there is, let me know otherwise it's not a valid rationale to revoke anyone's perms by just attaching the diff of message, and mentioning "needs more experience". PhantomVorteX (Talk) 09:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@VortexPhantom, as a probationary AFC reviewer, your perms can be revoked without discussion. But you have, in fact, had a discussion - this one. -- asilvering (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this discussion was @VortexPhantom’s accusation of me, not the other way around. - PhilDaBirdMan (Talk | Contribs) 13:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about NPR? PhantomVorteX (Talk) 14:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I opened review for PhilDaBirdMan not review of me.. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 14:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ping @HJ Mitchell the admin who granted me +new pages reviewer on the principles of WP: UNINVOLVED to clear my doubt and review Asilvering decision on revoking my NPR, even they didn't tried to find single inaccuracies during my new page reviewing. He can even close this discussion if wanted. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 14:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you expect in terms of a response from me. I granted you a trial and Asilvering had concerns so ended the trial. I'm certainly not going to wheel war with another admin, least of all when I agree with them. From reading this discussion, it's clear that you need to build some more experience and policy knowledge before moving back to reviewing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is no general immunity for reporters - see WP:BOOMERANG. ScalarFactor (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, It didn't go as planned, so I will try to get some more experience so that admins will not have to hesitate giving me this right. Thank you everyone who participated in this discussion. PhantomVorteX (Talk) 12:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just for your future reference, at the Internet Archive, if you click "Full Text" in the "Download Options" box (on the righthand part of the page), it will bring you to the OCR'd version of the book, which can then be easily copy-pasted into a translator app. (Ctrl-F for the page number helps with finding the right spot.) ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 07:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I have re-opened this for the purposes of getting a decision regarding Phil; it doesn't sound like people have found significant issue with their reviewing but it also got a little off-topic with reviewing VP as well. Thanks. If nothing's forthcoming I will leave things as-is. Primefac (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good idea. I reviewed Phil's most recent 10 reviews (Marwnad Cunedda through Nathan Webb) and I don't have concerns.
More detail: I consider it acceptable that Nathan Webb (priest) is currently at AfD; AfC is meant to accept articles that will probably be kept, which means sometimes accepting articles that are then nominated or deleted. (If that never happens, in my opinion, the reviewer is being too strict.) The other one I had to think about was Hanna Harutyunyan, a BLP which has some unreferenced sections. However, the unreferenced sections do not appear to be controversial or likely to be challenged, so I think this one is also an OK accept. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I need help with an article.

[edit]

I was trying to draft Martinsburg Street Railway and accidentally made it into an article. I would like to either move it to a draft or move it to my sandbox again. Thank you - Wobs. Wobs100 (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wobs100, moved back to your sandbox as requested. KylieTastic (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Message Moving Sandbox

[edit]

I am reviewing sandboxen that are listed as having AFC nominations in user space. When I move them from user space, where sandboxen reside, to draft space, I get a message that I have not previously seen, which says:

You are about to move a user subpage. If you are publishing a new article, be sure to change "User" to "(Article)" in the "New title:" dropdown.

I have moved user sandboxen to draft space hundreds of times in the past without getting this warning. I assume that there has been a change made to the Move script. Is there a reason for this new warning? I will ignore it, but would be interested in an explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the reasoning is because when people have drafts in their userspace, its not uncommon for users to move it from User:Foo/Bar to User:Bar (by accident), when it was clearly intended to be at Bar. It would also require an admin to delete the 'User:Bar' redirect as a G6/G7, unless the user has the pagemover right. And yes, the warning does appear on my end too JuniperChill (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas tohmas davage donald savage

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous § Pocahontas tohmas davage donald savage

Not really relevant to here. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Best way to handle paste to article space?

[edit]

Hi! I've seen several cases lately where an article is pending AFC review, but in the meantime has also been pasted into article space.

Example: Draft:2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Champions League squads and 2026 AVC Men's Volleyball Champions League squads

What's the best way to handle these? I read Wikipedia:History merging based on searching for info about cut and paste moves, which was helpful for when a history merge should be used, but I'm not clear on whether these articles should be in article space or draft space, and how to delete the other copy.

In this particular example, the article was originally created in article space, then draftified, then copied back to article space (by the original editor). But I think in previous cases they were originally created in draft space. Not sure if that makes a difference. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a history merge is the best option for that, and adding a tag will handle that regard. As for whether or not it should be in article or draft space my view is that because AfC is optional, they are definitely allowed to move their draft to mainspace if they choose, and if we disagree then the next forum is AfD, not trying to force them back to draftspace. Cutpaste moves happen because they often just don't know about how to move a page, but that should still be taken as their intent to move it themselves. With the original draft you can either redirect it to the article or just wait for it to G13 itself. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 18:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be a WP:NOATT situation where a history merge would be unnecessary for attribution. Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't see they didn't copy previous declines over. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 19:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to answer in the general regarding copy/paste page moves, because it is a question that gets brought up a lot here, there are a few steps/things to consider:
  • WP:DRAFTOBJECT means that if it's been moved into the draft space once, then it'll have to go to AFD the second time.
  • If there is only one content editor (i.e. the declines etc didn't get copied over) a histmerge is not needed. Otherwise...
  • Put a {{histmerge}} tag on the article so that the old revisions of the draft can be copied.
    • As a personal note regarding this point, I would rather decline a histmerge than not have one tagged, so if there is doubt or any questions by all means put the template on it.
  • Note that if a histmerge is not necessary, the best practice is to redirect the draft to the article, at the very least so it's not duplicated again for some reason.
Primefac (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Side question: Is WP:DRAFTIFY an option after authors move or copy from draft to mainspace? I assume WP:DRAFTOBJECT is implied in this case because they clearly intended to do the move so there is [not] a reasonable expectation that [draftifying] is uncontroversial. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After the first move, yes, because the move itself is considered a BOLD move and can be reverted. If it's not the first time the page has been moved, other avenues need to be taken. Primefac (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is the original question about the situation where there is a draft and an article with the same title? If so, the first question is whether they are by the same person. If so, I normally decline the draft as -exists- , and redirect the draft to the article. I don't always review whether the article should be in article space. If not, a New Page reviewer will nominate it for deletion. If they are by different people, but are the same or almost the same article, a history merge, as discussed above, is probably in order. Sometimes the draft and the article are different, and by different authors. In that case, they should be tagged for merging, but I can't find the option to tag two articles for merge. I think they have been moved or removed by Twinkle maintenance. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Flyingphoenixchips shouldn't be an AfC reviewer.

[edit]
Flyingphoenixchips (t · c · xtools · reviews)

It's regretful for me to have to suggest that one of my colleagues in the AfC reviewing space should have their reviewing privilege revoked, but @Flyingphoenixchips' name keeps coming up in the context of poorly-explained or outright erroneous declines.

For a few initial examples, look at User talk:Flyingphoenixchips#AfC declines where a few issues with their declines were raised and they explained it as an issue with some kind of LLM-based speech-action agent called Wisperflow which they use.

Recently myself I've noticed examples such as Draft:Stanley L. Robbins where this user declined the draft due to lacking sources, even though it clearly does have sources, and now Draft:Kargil Democratic Alliance where they declined it because "Youtube is not a reliable source" which is simply not a valid decline reason; whether Youtube is a reliable source depends on where the video comes from.

I can empathise if some of this is due to the tools they're using causing them to mistakenly select the wrong decline notice once or twice; but the fact this keeps happening is a bad look for the AfC system, and I would suggest we should pull their reviewing privileges until such time as they have the tools they need to carry out reviews with the appropriate care. Athanelar (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This user is an NPR, so we cannot really do anything other than flag these issues up to potentially have their perm pulled. That being said, if the argument is made well enough here I can do that. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think The editor has demonstrated a pattern of failing to exercise sufficient care when reviewing pages, resulting in users being offended or discouraged is immediately substantiated because in just the past 24 hours, their declines have led to one user posting on the Teahouse in confusion, and another at AFCHD; take a look at WP:TH#Regarding Draft Article Citations and WP:AFCHD#May 23#00:09, 23 May 2026 review of submission by SWJeff1750
If it weren't for these instances I wouldn't even bother bringing it up, but these obvious expressions of confusion by the reviewed editors combined with the existing pattern is a problem I think. Athanelar (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that you don't have valid points, but I would rather wait a beat for other opinions; this is AFC not NPR so I would like to give a little more diligence before removing a formal PERM (though I would also note it expires 2 June). I'll cross-post to NPR as a courtesy. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac - I am a reluctant participant to this discussion since I feel the reviewer's heart is 101% in the right place. In particular we both participated in an awkward lying LLM sockpuppet draft (Draft:AuDHD now deleted) that ended up on ANI, where within the confines of WP:AGF he correctly rescinded his previous decision as more evidence emerged. However I too have concerns. Particularly on days when as a new AFC reviewer he was operating at a rate of 121 reviews in 24 hours, using an LLM tool to do so, and coming up quite a number of cases on the Help Desk. Moreover, and I accept this not unusual, he was also signing off New Page Patrol on his accepted drafts, some of which probably could have benefited from another pair of eyes. One decline where I felt I had to intervene was 23:29, 6 May 2026 review of submission by Yngvadottir where a very long-established editor, with autopatrol rights, rightly submitted a rescued draft for a second opinion review. The decline reason (person versus event notability) was difficult to take on board, and would have been easily fixable by the reviewer. That case did seem to undermine what we are trying to do here.
My concerns would be greatly mitigated if the reviewer stops using Wispr Flow, slows down (as they have done more recently), spends a little more time getting the rejection messages right, and does not NPP on acceptances. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what would be deemed an acceptable result of this discussion, then that's fine with me. Primefac (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that the issue with erroneous decline messages was already raised to them earlier (the thread on their talk page which I linked), and no improvement was forthcoming (as evidenced by them making the same mistake just yesterday). I don't think I would be satisfied by them pledging to "be more careful", since that's what they already did in that thread on their talk page. Athanelar (talk) 13:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Athanelar@ChrysGalley@Primefac, thanks for the ping. Just to clarify I do not quite undrstand what you meant by "yesterday". I was on wikibreak, and haven't reviewed any pages in about more than a week. You can check my user history with regards to the same. Yes, I agree and apologies for adding incorrect decline tags to articles. I had issues with my PC, and was using an agentive tool to assist with PC usage. I have since stopped using it. You would be able to see this change in the recent AfC reviews after this was brought to my attention. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this proposal to prohibit new accounts from submitting drafts by others

[edit]

Although the discussion was not formally closed, there is clearly support for this proposition. Is this something that would be moved forward to fruition through this project?

Note that there were two alternatives suggested in the proposal, one being some technical removal of the ability of new accounts to submit drafts they had not worked on, and the second being a rule that such submissions would be rolled back. The first would be easier to enforce, since it would basically be automatic. The second would be on us as AFC reviewers to enforce. Any thoughts? BD2412 T 03:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with automation is that folks may need to submit drafts by other accounts, either because they created the page as TA's and then created an account, or are an account that logged out and is now a TA. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat concerned that this is the third or fourth AFC-related "proposal to overhaul everything" </hyperbole> that hasn't taken place here. I would also note that of the six people participating (not including yourself) there are only two NPR and none of the others are AFCH users. I do not have fully-formed thoughts on the proposal itself but at the very least we need input from the project before telling the project what we should be doing. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy to discuss it here, but something must be done. I have had several of my own drafts hit with drive-by submissions from spam accounts trying to build fake credibility before engaging on their spam efforts, and I have yet to see a brand new account legitimately submit someone else's otherwise untouched draft. BD2412 T 16:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I like Elemimele's proposal the best: "(account-isn't-EC) AND (account hasn't written at least 10% of the text)" being banned. I would change it to "(account has >100 edits) OR (created the draft)" being permitted as it would loosen up the minimum to take over a draft and also possibly make it easier to code (I do not know how hard it would be to check the latter part). ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea. It might've worked with IP addresses, but given that temporary accounts expire, this will mean that some people won't be able to submit their own articles if their account expires between doing most of the work and actually submitting. If someone submits a draft you're working on in a way that seems like spam/vandalism, that can be reverted individually, but not allowing people to submit drafts that they haven't written at least 10% of the text on seems unnecessary and like it would make it harder for TAs to use AFC... which is (some of) what AFC is for. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline template too big

[edit]

Made a post here that's of interest: Template talk:AfC decline#Template is too large grapesurgeon (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ricky (Chinese singer)

[edit]

I've placed this submission on hold for now because it seems kind of messy.

  • The original submission was created by a blocked sock, but has substantial edits by others
  • Said original submission was previously declined at least once as "merge article on non-notable singer to notable band in which they are a member"
  • I'm not certain if said merge ever actually occurred
  • The draft was unilaterally moved to mainspace by a now-blocked account of a different sockmaster than the original creator
  • This unilateral move was reversed without a proper edit summary. While I would normally just assume WP:BANREVERT as the reason, in this particular instance the user performing the revert has a litany of warnings on their talk page regarding declined submissions and unsourced additions related to pages on similar topics. Thus I'd argue that it could be plausible that there is some WP:POINTy element to this, though that's mere speculation and absent further evidence I'm willing to AGF
  • Another user added a comment suggesting that the move back to draft space itself could be a violation of WP:DRAFTNO, though no further explanation was provided. I take no stance on the merits of that comment; could it be possible that we have two different policies or guidelines in conflict here?
  • What's the best way to proceed from here?

I will be notifying both of the non-blocked accounts who have been indirectly mentioned here. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a closer look at the rest later to see if I can add anything to it, but to clarify, I think the reason I noted WP:DRAFTNO was that the page had been created more than 90 days prior to being moved to draft (was created in 2023, and moved in 2026). I don't necessarily object to that, given the circumstances, which is why I noted but did not take any action (my usual choice when I haven't analyzed the full situation) Edit: If the move to draft was a revert of a sock moving the page, I'll agree it was probably appropriate, and I did not notice the block back then. ASUKITE 18:28, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Taking Out The Trash I moved the article to draft status at that time because it was incomplete and wasn't ready for publication. I made a mistake because I didn't know I needed to add a draft summary, and I apologize for that. However, considering the recent changes made to the draft, I believe it's now ready for publication. Techgamer534 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers willing to review articles upon request

[edit]

I know that on Wikiepdia, there's things like "list of administrators willing to blah blah blah", to aid people looking to get something done that needs admin assistance. I was wondering if there were any things like that for AfC reviewers who will make a point to review an article if specifically asked to (like, on their talk page or smthng). If there's not one, I'd be willing to help set one up (Although I will admit I'm somewhot technologically inept, 😅). Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot, we discourage that kind of thing, so I would strongly suggest that you don't set up a page like that. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why's it discouraged? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Because it wouldn't accomplish what you think it will accomplish. If such a list existed, that's where everyone would go, inundating those reviewers on the list, because everyone wants their draft reviewed quickly, so you'd be back to the same problem. ("why haven't you reviewed my draft yet? It's been two days/two weeks/etc") Better to have a queue where it is openly said that reviews may not be quick. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps there could be some sort of restrictions on it? Like, "Your review has to have been pending for (two weeks or something like that) to be eligible" or something. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's getting into WP:CREEP territory.
You are certainly free to, for example, monitor the AFC Help Desk for people that ask for reviews and then conduct a review, but once people figure out that you're willing to review on request, you will be inundated with requests.
The aforementioned administrator request categories are different; they are for things that generally require the use of the administrator tools, so they provide a central location for all admins to go to. 331dot (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, cats like Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to investigate copyright matters aren't saying "bring us your copyright problems, we want to investigate", it's saying if you're looking for an admin to deal with a copyright issue, here are some you could ask. The equivalent in AfC terms would be something like "reviewers willing to investigate machine translation issues" or "reviewers with expertise in WP:MEDRS". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which, incidentally, we already have. Primefac (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you monitor WP:AFCHD and WP:TEA you should see more requests for reviews than you can handle, plus the more you do the more begging requests you will get on your own talk page. Personally I find it offensive that some think they can just ask for a quick review before the other many thousands of people patiently waiting for months. Most of the time when people ask for a review it would be an easy decline anyway as it's rare as hen's teeth for a writer of a quality article to ask for a review. KylieTastic (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It's typically COI/paid editors who ask for reviews early - they're the ones operating on deadlines. Be very sceptical of anyone who asks you to review their submissions if you haven't already engaged in prior conversation with them. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This time of year it's also students with deadlines from professors who have no idea how to run a productive/successful course about editing Wikipedia. If they waited this long to submit their draft for approval and it's due tomorrow... sucks to be them. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Single line submissions in history

[edit]

Using slightly roundabout wording here. But can I have the benefit of insights from those who have seen this before? When we get a review with a single line history submission such as Draft:Rock Doido, where my decline is the second update, should this not really be rejected as contrary to our purposes? That's reserved for no-doubt-about-it cases that can't be rescued, which seemed plausible here, given the editor is en-2 and it's a meaty draft. Now this example does have an AFC template, they often don't even have that. ChrysGalley (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. While I tend to write articles in multiple edits, I don’t think that someone doing it in one means much. It could be because they’re using an LLM but it could also be because they’re writing in a word processing software first or don’t want to hit published until they feel it’s done. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
These would be drafts that don't go through the submit process either, despite the initial AFC template. ChrysGalley (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very sceptical of drafts that were not only created in a single edit but also submitted at the same time. Maybe an experienced drafter will have figured out how to include a timestamped submission template as part of their draft creation, but I'd be more inclined to put that down to AI. I'm pretty sure this is also quite a new thing, I don't recall seeing those sort of single-edit-creations before at most a year or so ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, thank you for clarifying that distinction! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, agreed. There has always been some editors that create a draft in one go, but to have that and also submitted would lead me to expect LLM use. It is not enough to just declare it must be LLM but certainly needs a close review expecting to find slop. KylieTastic (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mass draft creation

[edit]

In the space of 3-4 hours, a TA has created 50+ drafts on Turkish and E.European athletes, a few of which have been thus far reviewed. I find it implausible that someone could manually churn out a new draft every few minutes, so I'm thinking LLM or some other automated process? There's no indication (that I've found) of these being translations, which might otherwise explain this, but if they are then they must be machine ones given the rate of output. I posted on their talk querying possible LLM use. What else, if anything, should we do about this? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I picked a couple of drafts at random. Draft:Mohsen Siyar gets 100% AI-likelihood from ZeroGPT, but 0% from GPTZero and Quillbot. Draft:Ahmet Kayra Ödemiş gets 82.5% / 0% / 0%, respectively. Make of that what you will. In both drafts, the sources seem to check out, and there are no blatantly obvious signs of LLM use. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst GPTZero gives Draft:Mohsen Siyar a 100% human score. All the refs are real and a couple of spot checks passed. They could just have prepped a lot up front either externally of just in separate tabs. Looks like they created 56 drafts in about 3.5 hours. It is a lot but not impossible, and at that speed I would expect an LLM to make hallucination mistakes. They are very formulaic with a few I've spot checked all being based of TaekwondoData as a source used multiple times per article as the base. KylieTastic (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an LLM could produce that. It might be automated but not by an LLM. I would bet you an LLM would try to press some sort of importance lecture onto the articles while these articles are very dry and statistical. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Doh just noticed you already said 0% AI from GPTZero - trouts self! KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Winston says 99% human with no sentences highlighted for AI. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I thought AI checkers were generally unreliable; has that changed? Or maybe that's true for academic work but different in a Wikipedia context.... SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They are one of an array of tools. They should not be used to single-handedly decide if an article is generated with such methods. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's at least one other TA (on the same underlying IP range) involved in this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To the question - what do we do? I have declined some of them for being purely database and governing body sourced. So WP:SPORTCRIT. Some of these drafts do have media reports, I'm leaving for now. Given the TA accounts, it's difficult to make a judgement on COI here (e.g. some initiative by a governing body), but I have asked anyway. ChrysGalley (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would just leave them unless there is another spurt leading to hundreds of created draft. At that point, I think WP:MASSCREATE should probably take effect. I do not think a couple dozen drafts are enough for concern. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WP:MASSCREATE is useful to know about. I reviewed a few earlier, all declined, although skimming through the others a few look like they could potentially be closer to approval. At the same time, there was a similar mass creation of archery results, from a different editor. These were very poorly-sourced (e.g. Draft:2024 European Archery Championships – Men's individual compound), and the person got very upset when some of them were declined, and immediately re-submitted them. Could also just be automated, as the articles are basically just results, with little to no text. Greenman (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The above contains good analysis, but I will note that there are at least two editors I know of (both indeffed for IDHT surrounding this sort of thing) that "back in the day" mass-created hundreds of sports-related biographies basically by pulling stats from sources and "filling in the blanks" on a pretty generic biography base. My point being I suppose that doing this manually is totally doable, if annoying. If they do persist in creating an unnecessary number of non-notable drafts I would suggest blocking the underlying IP, but as floated above simply reviewing them is probably fine for now. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this could be Pehlivanmeydani, who was blocked two months ago from the main article space for "Repeated AI-generated articles with source integrity issues". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @DoubleGrazing, some of the archery material was under that name. I have some dialogue with him on my Talk page. The format between archery and the TA taekwondo and wrestling drafts is quite similar - a set of database listing sources, extracted in a proforma fashion. I declined due to the draft only having database listings, no secondary, no prose, he challenged my decline (the wording looks a bit LLM-ish but for the emotional bits), I said it needs at least some prose sourcing and suggested he just submit a few to begin with. Well within 20 minutes he had found multiple secondary sources for 9 drafts, which isn't something I can manage. The TA ones also now have multiple secondary sources. AGF, but something isn't adding up. ChrysGalley (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A question for @NeoGaze: The user discussed above has mass-created a whole bunch of similar articles. I've declined a few myself, and ChrysGalley has as well, but you approved this submission. It only has two sources, both pdfs from the same site, an enthusiast's archery website, so it looks very far from meeting the golden rule. What do you think? Greenman (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, since the event itself (2024 European Archery Championships) seemed to be notable enough, I tought there would be no issue with that submission. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the source pdfs seem to come from official sources, even if they are hosted on a personal website. NeoGaze (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have at times generated dozens of drafts at a time, usually from a database of individuals such as the justices of a particular state supreme court. I have not drafted and submitted right away, or purported to have drafted submission-ready pieces. BD2412 T 22:53, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation&oldid=1357495792"