This page is used for the administration of theArticles for Creation orFiles for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope ofWikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to thediscussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 isartificial intelligence.Robert McClenon (talk)17:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's rough, yeah. What only makes it worse is thatfalse 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 anecessary 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?GGOTCC03:09, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 caseour 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.
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.GGOTCC03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that asingle "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 trustanything 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I certainly agree, and it good to see others who are notthat gun-ho on denying articles for AI use without direct evidence.GGOTCC03:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 postedthis proposal below, if anyone in this discussion has thoughts.Drew Stanley (talk)16:29, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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. --bonadeacontributionstalk12:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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. --bonadeacontributionstalk20:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 generateordure, and then whining about it. They should be embarrassed about it. I'm not sure whether that is an observation or an exhortation! 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 aWP:DICK but the insult plus the carpet stain was too much for me.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)21:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸22:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just assume everything is AI-assisted. It'sridiculously easy to do. I just asked Chat GPT (https://chatgpt.com/) to create a Wikipedia article for Franky Johnson and I got the same "Playing style" heading asDraft:Franky Johnson although not written exactly the same. It then gave me options to add an infobox and "prepare this in Wikipedia markup ready to paste into an article draft page". Here's my version:User:WikiOriginal-9/Franky Johnson. I literally did not change anything other than hiding the categories. All of the code was written by Chat GPT. It even added a dangshort description... -.-~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk)15:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With auser 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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, andIngenuity:Fade258 (talk)16:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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}} WOOF04:43, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Essentially, you'd need to demonstrate there'ssignificant 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)[reply]
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 beblanked 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)[reply]
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 followingWP: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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 isDraft: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)[reply]
I did a round-robin swap, and have moved the existing stub to draft space and redirected it to the article. The articleSilacyclobutane 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)[reply]
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 agood 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.
@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. Thereare 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)[reply]
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.
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 ismuch less strict. See an image listed as "own work" that is really clearlynot 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)[reply]
@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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸19:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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.
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 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 theTechnical Chamber of Greece (TEE) (a professional body).
Digital preservation of award ceremony photographs inZenodo (CERN) and theInternet Archive.
A professional news announcement fromIGI Global.
An academic award fromEmerald 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thank you, qcne. I have searchedWikipedia: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)[reply]
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.
Hi all, this is your irregularly-scheduled reminder toplease always give a notability-related decline if relevant. If you decline for something else (unreliable sources, verifiability, tone, LLM, etc) butdon'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 declinedagain 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 rathernot 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Even a pretty messed-up draft should be accepted if it meets notability guidelines and doesn't violate core policies. We're notWP:GAN. Just let it through. Tag for cleanup if necessary. --asilvering (talk)00:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 inNature (journal) but it wasn't mentioned in the original draft. But the one potential exception is aWP:BLP with aWP: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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 pageNil🥝00:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Use of article-space maintenance templates in Draft namespace
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.
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)[reply]
I have a question forUser: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 anautobiography, or otherwise aconflict 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)[reply]
I would say the autobio and COI tags are notmaintenance 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 acceptedshould meet the minimum standards of neutrality (i.e. the tags will be pointless).Primefac (talk)10:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 peopledo use them in this way. To my great annoyance. --asilvering (talk)10:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 prettybitey to the creator. I suggest using thedraft 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)[reply]
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 theBLP tag in drafts?Vodnir (talk)14:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Strong candidate for the most cryptic question of the day!)
@Gregory Khachatrian: your two redirect requests (this andthis) were declinedfor 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 toSpanish_profanity#Cojón?
@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)[reply]
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.
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.
I've been working on ademo for what I think AfC may benefit from - a Wizard, like the one fromWikipedia: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).
A large portion of AfC drafters are genuinely here to contribute to Wikipeida, but are unaware about theWP:GNG guidelines, causing them to put effort into a draft that eventually getsG8'ed orG11'ed. These editors areWP: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 theirSpecial: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, withHTML tags(eek!), we can challenge draft submitters to put their pen where their mouth is, and prove notablilty hands-on.
Currently, the demo uses theWP: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 aboutHarambe for my AfC submission about theAmerican crow. If this proposal were to be implemented, there would probably be some sort of client-sidedAI 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)
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,monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)18:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
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 usuallyWP:NOTHERE to contribute to WP, and so preventing them from wasting their effort really isn't a priority.monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)19:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at the demo, the first thing that was obvious related to offline sources, which are perfectly acceptable, but theWP: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)[reply]
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, includingthis 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)[reply]
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.
Ivara96 This page is for discussion about the Articles for Creation process itself; please use theAFC 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 thegeneral 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)[reply]
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.
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 atWP:PERM/NPR.Alpha3031 (t •c)16:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸09:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a draft has the phrase "There is limited information about …" something, such as reception of a film. An example isDraft:Agnishapath, which saysThere is limited information available regarding box office performance. I am inclined to think that this phrase was provided byartificial 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 ofAI slop, but is this a valid concern in this case?Robert McClenon (talk)19:06, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.Catalk to me!23:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well, such mentions of "limitations" are included inWP: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.Catalk to me!00:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes a draft has language that reads as if it was copied from a blurb. InDraft: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?
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In abiography of a living person, the references must bein-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, andDraft: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 meetfilm 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)[reply]
References like this often show up from new editors who don't know how references work. The best thing to do is point them toHelp:Introduction and tell them to read the referencing sections and put the references inline properly.StarryGrandma (talk)20:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 addingv as a decline reason if the references are subpar.Primefac (talk)00:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correct way to achieve a review is to create the draft article and use the AFC system to request a review. Pre-revoew requests of any form are not accepted, and thsi is the incorrect venue. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸08:36, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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/musicianJulian Lerner meets the criteria for a standalone Wikipedia biography underWP: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 onYes Day (interview and film coverage)
People Magazine – cast list and coverage forZombies 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 inZombies 4 and his music work
Naluda Magazine – interview focusing on his recurring role inThe Wonder Years
Courageous Nerd – exclusive interview about his character and work onThe Wonder Years
Visual Tales Magazine – profile covering his acting background and creative work
The Nerds of Color – interview tied to his performance inYes Day
BroadwayWorld – coverage of his stage work and early career
This page is for discussing the operation of the Articles for Creation process; I would suggest that you use theTeahouse 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 isWP: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Can we incorporate the policy into AFCH? The decline dropdown has an "ai" option; it is a "reason" parameter for decline/comment (see here:[2]). 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)[reply]
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 alot 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
When we use the box im the "Review me" template to move a user sandbox containing a draft of Foo toDraft: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 ofHans 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?
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)[reply]
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 tobe 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)[reply]
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 (likethis), travel sections of otherwise-RS mainstream media (eg.The Sunday Times Travel Magazine), as well as a myriad of 'lifestyle' websites (likethis) where you really can't tell whether they're fish or fowl. I'mnot 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 likeClaridge's orPera 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 theDaily Telegraph and, um, theDaily 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)[reply]
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 submittedDraft: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.
@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 deskWP:AFCHD. Thank you. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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 is usually voluntary, except for temp accounts/non-autoconfirmed perm. accounts, users with a COI, or users under editing restrictions(like a topic ban). If a user wants to disregard the advice of reviewers and roll the dice that a New Page Patroller or other user won't nominate it for deletion, that's up to them. (usually)331dot (talk)21:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a page is moved to article space after being declined in draft space, please review whether it satisfiesnotability. If it does not satisfy notability and has not been moved back to draft space previously, you may move it back to draft space. A page should only be unilaterally draftified once. If it has already been moved to draft space once and returned to article space, but does not belong in article space, it should benominated for deletion.Robert McClenon (talk)05:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently discussion atthe Education Noticeboard that I will call to the attention of AFC reviewers. There have been a fewsockpuppet investigations because multiple drafts have been submitted for review on the same topics in the area of financial analysis (that is, technical mathematical analysis of the performance of securities on markets) by different new accounts, and reviewers have asked for investigation of whether the different new accounts had the same humans behind them. What is happening is notsockpuppetry, but a different, more complicated concern aboutconflict of interest. These submissions are class projects in classes taught by a professor who is assigning students to write Wikipedia drafts about his (the professor's) work. In each case, the multiple accounts are multiple students. There is no sockpuppetry. If you see such submissions, please do not report them assockpuppets. The issue isconflict of interest by proxy, because the professor is trying to use Wikipedia to publicize his academic work.Robert McClenon (talk)05:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewingDraft:Mark Poloncarz, a biography of a living person. I think there are NPOV issues (omitting criticism or controversy of the subject,like described in this source). However, I'm not sure the NPOV decline reason text is exactly right. The draft is not overtly promotional, and the tone is close to what I expect from an article. Can I get a second opinion?—🌊PacificDepths (talk)08:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who has been in politics for nearly 20 years is going to get criticism, whether legitimate or not is subjective, but the presence of criticism is an objective fact of democracy. There is only a passing reference to a couple of possibly negative events. That said, once published, other editors get the opportunity to balance this, so long as it is properly sourced. What we see today may not survive long. Note that a June 2025 AFC decline has been edited out. Question: would the Encyclopedia Britannica write an article like this?ChrysGalley (talk)18:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there were changes made to the script a few years back to avoid duplicate cats and the like; there is arequest on the git to fix this so I might be thinking of a different issue since I cannot find any discussion in the archives (I only went back a couple of years though).Primefac (talk)09:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I don't frequent AfC (submitting or reviewing) - this is more of a drive-by bug report based on an edit I saw.
Inthis edit byBearcat, the script automatically removed a seemingly valid AfC template for no good reason (that I can see, anyway). Maybe someone with more experience with the script could take a look at it and see what happened there.Suntooooth, it/he (talk |contribs)23:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concur, my intention with that edit was strictly to disable the categories onWP:DRAFTNOCAT grounds, and it doesn't seem to me like the AFC template should have been a problem that required cleaning up. I've certainly never seen the AFCH script remove any other AFC templates from other drafts that I can recall.Bearcat (talk)00:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the code in AFCH.Submission.loadDataFromTemplates(), it only recognizes{{AfC submission}} and{{AfC comment}}.
{{AfC submission/draft}} seems to be part of a whole series of templates that are "daughter templates" that are not meant to be used directly. The docs for{{AfC submission/draft}} don't say that it's a daughter template that shouldn't be used, but the docs for the similar template{{AfC submission/declined}} do.
I won't say that the draft author used AI. They could just be a newbie that got confused about the templates. But in this AI world, I could certainly see an AI guessing the wrong template and getting lucky in the sense that this template is still technically usable.
I have noticed the use of{{AfC submission/draft}} a lot more recently and I'm not even doing much AfC anymore. I do assume it is AI related but not just AI slop creations as I have seen it manually added (maybe from AI advice). So I'm not sure removing is a good thing. I don't think AFCH should remove templates it does not recognise it should just leave them.KylieTastic (talk)11:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just did asearch and it's used a lot (over 3100 hits) including user pages. It is also on some users pages as a useful link such as onUser:Deepfriedokra. The documentation atTemplate:AfC_submission also says
which could encourage people to just use{{AfC submission/draft}} as it is no longer a hidden subtemplate. As such this is widespread enough that I don't think we can now just say it's a daughter template that should not have been used and ignore this. Maybe AFCH should just have an early cleanup rule to replace{{AfC submission/draft}} with{{AfC submission|T}}.KylieTastic (talk)11:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl, True I hadn't thought of that - I really don't care, some may though. Maybe just hold fire and see if any others think the current usages should be fixed or left and if doing it should it be done via a bot so stop G13 delays.KylieTastic (talk)19:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully not, I've been adding the /draft template foryears now. The primary reason is that it allows for quick addition of the text without mucking about with|u= and all the timestamp nonsense.Primefac (talk)12:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, what I meant was more that I never remember what the parameter value to trigger /draft is, and when you use AFCH to add the draft tag it adds timestamps (which leads to really weird things like a "two year old" pending draft that was submitted yesterday). It's a habit I got into a decade ago when I first started helping out here and on IRC. I would also argue (based on a point above) that /draft is not a daughter template in the same way that /pending or /accepted are, because itcan be used as a standalone template.Primefac (talk)12:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if we could fix AFCH from deleting it, also it needs looking into to make sure it's not deleting other templates without justification as well.KylieTastic (talk)12:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the easiest fix; /draft doesn't display if there is an active submission template on the page, so it's not like we have to worry about removing them until the page is accepted.Primefac (talk)12:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could something be included at some point in the process to alert someone reviewing or trying to accept that the file contains the source text including "chrome-extension". This generally occurs when an editor copies the entire URL into a ref not realizing that Chrome has helped with the pdf display. If the text after chrome-extension:/asdfffa/ starts with an http it is ok to just strip it. (where asdfffa is a *long* string of lower case letters) not sure it is worthwhile to try to autocorrect though.Naraht (talk)18:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, removed the ones that I found, but now view that as i should have pointed it out here before cleaning it up. I will wait a month and check stats again.Naraht (talk)21:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How to clarify COI warning templates for draftspace editors?
When you decline a article, and select one of the templates reason template, it occasionally eventually gets replaced with just "r", and the whole thing is messed up. Anyone know why this is happening, or how to fix it?Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk)20:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't seem to be user error. Seems to be an issue in the scripts for the Reviewer Tools. What, precisely, I don't quite know.
I'm going to resubmit and redecline the test draft, for the reasons "non-notable corporation" and "non-notable person". Beyond that, I won't do anything, at all, intentionally; we'll see what happens.Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk)23:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking assistance regarding the tone of two responses I received at the AfC help desk from Anachronist and Cullen328.
I asked a procedural question about how to request a different reviewer for my draft.Instead of guidance, I received responses implying negative motives (“Is it vanity? SEO? Publicity?”) and remarks such as “You have not done so.” and “Will anything be left?”.
I understand the policies on WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:COI, and I am not disputing the draft decline. My concern is that the tone did not align with WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, or WP:BITE, and left me uncertain how to continue working constructively within AfC.
Could the project please clarify:
Whether such tone is considered acceptable at AfC;
How new users should proceed if they experience discouraging or personal comments;
Whether there is a standard way to request neutral, policy-focused feedback.
Regarding Question 3; I believeCullen328 Linked to 3 different policy pages, especially two very relevant ones, the one on autobios and the one on notability. In the decline message bymonkeysmashingkeyboards on your draft, the decline links to the Notability uideline again, as well as three links to pages describing the requirements of reliable sourcing. This feedback is quite focused in policy. Happy Editing --IAmChaos05:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nikasandler, I volunteered to take the time to give you highly relevant, accurate and cogent feedback about your draft, which has glaring problems. I have personally written over 100 new articles and not a single one has ever been deleted. I am the primary author of a designatedGood article about a photographer,Cedric Wright. I have written and expanded several other articles about photographers and expanded over 1000 articles. In response to my sincere feedback, you chose to criticize me behind my back. I guess this is an example of the aphorismNo good deed goes unpunished.Cullen328 (talk)05:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikasandler: I for one see nothing wrong with the communications you have received. You were advised two months ago against creating an autobiography. You are attempting to use Wikipedia (and, to some extent, Commons) to promote yourself, and we happen to take a rather dim view of that here. If you persist regardless, you can expect further push-back, and may eventually be blocked. --DoubleGrazing (talk)07:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why they might have been upset with the reply byAnachronist(courtesy ping) but I do agree on the whole it was sound advice.
To answer #2 above, I think those are two separate issues. Personal attacks should not be tolerated (and I see no issue with you raising them here even though the replies themselves are rather benign) but "discouraging" commentsoften happen, especially if the editor is writing about a non-notable subject.Primefac (talk)09:52, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I ask everyone I encounter why they want an article about themselves, and I list the most common reasons I have seen. And, I note, you have not answered the question. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)16:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would. I am not inclined to react politely to AIs. I prefer communicating with actual humans. That's why I asked the question I did, because only the human could answer it correctly, not the AI. I'm still waiting for the answer. It was a direct question, not rhetorical. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)17:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to draw attention to the recent reviews ofMCE89 (AfC log). I first noticed this user after they accepted the previously draftifiedCapella Regalis Choirs, written by a now-blocked COI editor, leaving me to clean up the promotional material. (discussion on their talk pagehere).
More recently, I draftifiedDraft:Hesham Rakha without noticing that MCE89 had accepted this at AfC -- an excessively promotional autobiography. When asked about this draft, MCE89 states that because it has a 50% chance of surviving an AfD, it is suitable to be accepted (recent discussionhere andhere). I contend that this is not the only metric we apply at AfD, an article must be neutral. Issues with the reviews of MCE89 have also been noticed byScope creep, who was similarly dismissed. Since then, I have gone through the AfC log of MCE89 and discovered more concerning articles such asTikehau Capital,Truveta,Rocket.Chat,Bluevine, and more blatant spam -- on December 6th, MCE89 accepted nine articles in a row in the span of 50 minutes, some as little as two minutes apart -- surely not enough time for a thorough review.
I see that MCE89 continues to be active at AfC, and the fact that they seem to be doubling down on this style of reviewing is very concerning to me. I'd like to hear the input of others on whether there's as much of a problem here as I think there is. Thanks,MediaKyle (talk)19:54, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning to go through the log as well, but diverted and forgot about. There is a problem here I think. That article I redrafted was a mess.scope_creepTalk20:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that they are anNPR so I cannot remove them from the list if there are problems. That being said, most of the coordinators of NPP are fairly active here so I'm not going to ping them about this just yet.Primefac (talk)00:19, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily mind formalising an expectation that submissions from SPAs or COI/paid editors receive stricter scrutiny and feedback on NPOV/NOT or something similar, but the accepts are not obviously incorrect with reference to the current reviewing instructions. We could also change the tagging of non-deletion-worthy problems from a possibility to a recommendation to encourage reviewers to note somewhere that yes, they do in fact see that issue. That may be helpful for communication within the project.Alpha3031 (t •c)03:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is fair — I've tended to sometimes just mark accepted drafts as unreviewed and leave them for NPP to take another look and apply the appropriate tags if I think there are non-notability-related issues that aren't severe enough to warrant a decline, but I can definitely start doing more of this tagging myself. I've also gone back over everything that I've accepted this month and done some further tagging and clean up.MCE89 (talk)08:46, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MediaKyle for raising these concerns. You're absolutely welcome to nominate any article that I have accepted at AfD if you disagree with my assessment of notability. The four you've pointed out (Tikehau Capital,Truveta,Rocket.Chat andBluevine) are all relatively borderline on CORPDEPTH in my view, but I felt that all of these would have a decent enough chance of surviving an AfD for an AfC acceptance, and I wouldn't describe any of them as "blatant spam".
The articles that I think you are referring to that I accepted in quick succession on 6 December I had already pre-reviewed. This is because five of them needed to be moved over an existing redirect, so I decided to accept them over the span of several hours and tagged the redirects for deletion. Once I saw that the redirects had all cleared I accepted them all at once. I tend to do a lot of clean up and maintenance tagging of many of the articles I accept, and when I think an article particularly needs another opinion I mark it as unreviewed so that it gets a second pair of eyes from NPP. If you look through my AfC log and if you look at there-reviews done on my reviews as part of the current backlog drive, I don't think it suggests that I am just carelessly hitting accept on every draft I come across.
I'd also point out that I have mostly been reviewing older drafts, where there are always going to be borderline calls and plenty of drafts with non-deletion-worthy issues. I'm not surprised that people are going to disagree with some of my reviews, and if an article that I accepted gets deleted at AfD then I'll take that on board and recalibrate my reviewing accordingly. But I agree with Alpha3031 that I don't see why my accepts are clearly incorrect under our reviewing instructions.MCE89 (talk)04:41, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some issue with the bot designated for counting points in the current AfC backlog. I reviewed a bunch of pages last night (mostly a lot of quick decline submissions) however the bot has not counted any of them, both at the midnight update interval and the 6:00am update interval. It seems to only be updating small chunks of users, e.g. 8 users at 6am compared to 17 users the previous day at 6am, or 11 users at midnight today compared to 25 users yesterday at midnight. I'm not familiar with bots and I don't know what would cause it, but I think it should be looked into. @BunnypranavRambley(talk /contribs)09:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambley Issue has been fixed. It was caused by a user's name being read in a wrong way, who was in the middle of the participants list. The program quit there and stopped. Please ping if it occurs again. :)~/Bunnypranav:<ping>13:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone who is familiar with the intricacies of the AFCH script please look at this draft? I am trying to accept it, but when I click on the AFCH tab, I can only get it to display the yellow Comment bar and the blue Submit bar, and I can't get the draft into a status where I can accept (or decline) it. Thank you.Robert McClenon (talk)13:13, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't directly help, but I had one of those today for the first time too. Marking it under review did not help (but did add the header template). I took the lazy way out and Twinkled it to G6 Housekeeping - it was duplicated draft and user page with user page submitted to AFC.ChrysGalley (talk)14:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Come to our attention that @Assas CHEUNG, a tutor at Assas University, has directed his class to create Wikipedia articles andmake DYK nominations. Unfortunately, a number of the created drafts are inappropriate and a few have been moved back and forth to mainspace.
Please could extra care be taken by reviewers, and be on the lookout for any other articles oneconomics as it relates to Art, Crypto, Healthcare, Climate, or War or any other users with an affiliation to Assas University not in the category.qcne(talk)18:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note in public that while we should not give any deference to student work (a few have been G15'd), we should try our best to AGF despite the larger than usual volume of work dealing with this may take. So far we've had a student approach us for help and they have been generally receptive. That said, we should also be on the lookout for any repeated moves to mainspace or other disruptive behaviour, and make it very clear to the student (and the instructor) that that is blockable. Also will be copying this over to NPP.Fermiboson (talk)18:52, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I make a list of draft articles to help with the cleanup? I see elsewhere that there is a lot of mitigation needed so I think such a list would be helpful. If created it would be on theAssas hub. Thanks,Chorchapu (talk |edits)02:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a one-off, I would just fix it and carry on with life. If it happens a few times, we might have to consider a fix, but I'm not going to get too bothered about updating the templates just yet.Primefac (talk)14:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-on thought, though, I do appreciate the issue being raised here; I'm dealing with a bug on a different script that I've been saying "oh it's not that big a deal" foryears and only just now saying something about it. Best to check these things early!Primefac (talk)10:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for assistance: I reviewed Manu Sawhney (declined). The talk page was somehow the creating user's user page. So I moved the Draft talk to user talk. Does this fix the issue? How did it happen in the first place?Drew Stanley (talk)17:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was created on the author's userpage (which is something I had already warned them against, evidently in vain...), and when it wasmoved to drafts, the mover probably just forgot to untick the 'Move associated talk page' box, so the user talk page got moved along with it. It looks alright now. --DoubleGrazing (talk)18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a bot to restore hits toedit filter 1370, but myBRFA's been denied for lack of consensus(no hard feelings). The bot restores removed AFC templates({{AFC submission}} and{{AFC comment}}) — this differs from setting 1370 to block since this allows the edit through, just adds back the AFC templates that were previously removed. (This can happen accidentally, e.g. ctrl-a replacing the wikitext and accidentally removing the templates.)
What consensus is needed for:
AFC is optional(seems to be pretty common among reviewers, though I haven't seen this stated in any policy)
Quoting @Tenshi Hinanawi:reinstating the template after they have chosen to remove them seems a bit similar to readding warnings to a user's talk page after the user removes them, as well as pushing them to go through AfC even though they are not obligated to.
I actually mused about this in the AfC Discord last night.
What we are seeing on the new edit filter is a lot of drafts where the authors write-over the previous decline templates, which includes any re-submission button. The draft is then stuck unsubmitted until either the author realises something is wrong or it get's deleted in six months for no activity. This isn't ideal from a new user experience point of view.
Separately, is also really annoying to see a draft with no reviews, but then you go into the edit history and see loads of reviews that have been deleted by the draft author. Sometimes this can be done accidentally - the author not knowing better - but sometimes it's done maliciously.
So I actually think we have two separate but related issues, but I am not sure if a bot that restores the templates is the way to go.
I think a bot that notifies an author on their Talk Page that they've entirely removed the AFC submission templates (leaving it unsubmitted) after a few hours is a good idea.qcne(talk)18:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest notifying the author when they submit the draft, then if there isn't a response - e.g. "reply with "do not restore" along with your reasoning to not restore submission templates" then deciding weather to restore the template.monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)19:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the kinds of folks that removed AFC decline accidentally (total beginners) would probably not have the technical skills to fix it themselves. And I think the kinds of folks that removed these on purpose (COI/UPE/bad actors that want to not be transparent about their history of declines) would ignore it. So I think that notifying folks on their user talk might not be the way to go here. –Novem Linguae(talk)06:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, this might be better to invoke when the article is resubmitted since it's more of a courtesy for AfC reviewers rather than the editors themselves. But that could be a lot harder to actually do.guninvalid (talk)18:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely isn't trival, but it should be possible without large code changes because of the way I've programmed it. Though it would be a lot more computationally expensive, it really wouldn't matter since it'd take a container's worth of space every day anyways.monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk)19:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe1370 could be set to warn, which would let the creator know that they are removing the template if they didn't mean to, but won't prevent them from removing the template if that's what they want to do.Tenshi! (Talk page)19:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just me, but I think warn might be overkill - a big warning about your edit is a lot more intimidating compared to a message on your talk page.(Plus, people don't like to read)
I don't think so, an automated warning is a lot less intimidating then someone pointing this out on your talk page as a new user. I'd say it also depends on wording as well.Tenshi! (Talk page)19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1. This would be a simple solution to the problem that could probably achieve consensus more easily than a hard rule or bot-enforced rule that you can never remove AFC decline templates. –Novem Linguae(talk)06:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say re-add the template and notify the user (explaining that this is how AFC submissions are resubmitted) at once at the same time, but to avoid the possibility of entering a bot-assisted edit war, don't re-add the same content if it gets removed again,i.e.: if a re-addition of the AfC templates would duplicate exactly a previous re-addition by the bot in the article history, cancel the edit. But otherwise, I strongly like the idea of this bot.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)19:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My fear with that would be mentioned above, where the author doesn't see the blue "resubmit" button and it gets forgotten about and in 6 months time is lost, and the project is no better off for it and the editor is frustrated.Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk)14:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Crossposting from the drive talk page as I'm not sure that it'll be seen there:
Not sure why but my re-reviews don't seem to be counted in the leaderboard totals. Possibly related but I've also noticed in the past that some bots struggle to log my actions in XFD, which I reckon might be related to my signature?Signature looks sensible but if someone knows why this is happening do let me know.sksatsuma21:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Should we have a tracking category for drafts that were resubmitted after being rejected? Rejection is supposed to be final, and thus attempting to bypass it may be the basis of an MfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)17:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't AfC technically optional? Nothing really is stopping anyone from re-adding the template after a rejection, and they can always just move it to mainspace.HurricaneZetaC17:22, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they've a COI, of course. I've just now seen one rejected draft being resubmitted, and for good measure the user also removed the paid-editing-disclosure from their userpage. --DoubleGrazing (talk)17:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Resubmission after rejection by an AfC reviewer is tendentious and wastes reviewer time, which usually ends up with the draft being deleted at MfD. Seehere for an example.Tenshi! (Talk page)17:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfC is optional/voluntary unless one has a COI, is under editing restrictions/blocks from article space, or isn't autoconfirmed/editing via a temp account. One outside of those situations can certainly disregard the process, but they shouldn't wipe the previous decline/reject messages and then resubmit for a review.331dot (talk)17:50, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done –Novem Linguae(talk)06:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed~/Bunnypranav:<ping>10:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
