This page is forNew Page Reviewers to discuss the process with each other and to ask for and provide help to fellow reviewers. Discussion also takes place on our Discord server (invite link)For discussions on other matters, such as bugs, etc., please navigate through the tabs, or go to the discussion pages of the relevant policies.For discussion on topics purely relevant tocoordination tasks, such as backlog drives, please post atCoordination Talk
I find in the last few days that while I can click the buttons on the NPP tool, when I try to enter text into the tool (like leaving a comment or searching for a tag), it won't let me? Is that unique to me, or is something wrong with the NPP tool? thanks.Aszx5000 (talk)18:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm experiencing the same thing with the page curation tool. Twinkle has a review tool that works well (although it doesn't have the exact same menu of message options).Dclemens1971 (talk)18:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is too long, but is still over-tagged. The trial was notable, however the article is screening +80% on copyvio, and I am not sure that I understand the copyvio results (it is so big, they are spread all over). Would appreciate somebody else taking a look at it to assess how serious the copyvio is? thanks. 19:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Aszx5000 (talk)19:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be marked as reviewed, as long and overly detailed as it is. It's a notable topic, no copyvio, core NPP questions thus addressed; issues have been tagged for others to address. Normal editorial processes can handle the article's problems.Dclemens1971 (talk)21:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Idaho one has, in its log, "08:23, 1 September 2025 AstrooKai talk contribs marked the article Idaho Family Policy Center as reviewed". Maybe it depends on when the lists get updated and how the lists are cached?? --Northernhenge (talk)08:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it looks like that section of the Easy reviews page hasn't updated since 1st September. I'll check if I can prod it to update. -MPGuy2824 (talk)08:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is one possibility, yes. Another is that a malformed template from the Page excerpt column of "Unreviewed politicians" wasn't allowing the bot to continue with the rest of the reports. -MPGuy2824 (talk)10:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I first made that userpage, I was trying to gather some data on the UPE shadow war going on. Was it just a couple a year, or a bunch? How pernicious is their infiltration of NPE-related perms? Sadly the answer is... Quite pernicious. More than I thought. Although I suspect we eventually catch them and clean up their damage, so maybe that offsets it. –Novem Linguae(talk)16:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's worrisome to say the least and I don't think your list is updated every time. I admittedly forget about it. In this instance, it appears AfD was more so the target than NPP (see alsoWP:Sockpuppet investigations/Taabii which is still open) but most of those AfDs are closed.S0091 (talk)17:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that on the whole these folks do more good than they do harm, if we're only thinking in terms of "number of good actions" vs "number of bad actions". But the breach of trust, and the amount of time the rest of us have to spend cleaning it all up... sheesh. --asilvering (talk)01:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That Afd list will be magically appearing at Afd in the next week or two, the ones that are not deleted anyway along with some of the associated ones as well. Look out for them.scope_creepTalk10:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful list above. Do we also keep lists of the articles that UPEs edit (as they are almost certainly going to re-appear with other UPE socks). I do find that this is a particular problem with Indian bio articles being created by new editors in perfect WP format (plus images) - they really fight their case (as a result of being a UPE I guess), and it can be a real time-sink imho.Aszx5000 (talk)12:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If an article reappears, you'll be able to see the deletion log saying it's already been removed before. You can look at the page creation logs to see who made it that time, and follow that back to the relevant block/SPI. --asilvering (talk)12:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Asilvering, and I note that. I was wondering if we keep lists of non-notable Bios that the subject repeadly gets UPEs to try and re-post, as it would expose new UPEs that perhaps didn't realise the history? i.e. like a WP honey-trap?Aszx5000 (talk)23:56, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A confidential list might (?) be useful for speeding up the recognition / quick warning sign that the editor is most likely a UPE (especially when the UPEs alter the name to avoid being able to see the past creation history)?Aszx5000 (talk)00:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’mJahnavi, a design researcher at the Wikimedia Foundation and we’re currently running aresearch study on guided article and section creation. As a part of this study, we’re looking to conduct a 75 mins session with reviewers and patrollers to understand how new articles are reviewed, the process for reviewing, and pain points in this process. We would also like inputs on some very early stage design concepts. We are pleased to offer a digital thank you gift through our partner service,Tremendous, for completing the interview. If you would like to participate, please complete thisshort form. Please note that we have limited capacity so unfortunately we may not have the time to schedule sessions with everyone who expresses interest.
If you have any questions or concerns about this research, please feel free to ask me!
Are we supposed to tag articles on contentious topics when reviewing them? Are there any guidelines specifically for this? For instance, I came acrossAnti-fascist Bulldozer March which clearly falls underWikipedia:Contentious topics/South Asia - should I be sending alerts to the editors or placing a tag on the talk page or something? I know very little about the politics of the region so am not sure I would even spot problematic edits.Lijil (talk)12:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there. Nope, neither is required. And in general I'd recommend against doing a user talk alert unless an editor is clearly misbehaving. Although adding an article talk page alert banner is reasonable if you have extra time. –Novem Linguae(talk)17:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog graph at the top of this page is looking really good. Looks like we've reviewed about 10,000 more articles than normal thanks to this backlog drive, which is more than the last 3 backlog drives. Woohoo. Keep up the good work. Keep pushing -- one of these days we can get to zero backlog again :)
I’m coming across articles in the new pages feed that have been tagged as ai-generated without discussion on the talkpage.James Simpson Love is the example I’ve just been looking at. If (very unusually) I can see and fix any obvious problems, I do so and then mark the article as reviewed. Almost always, though, I don’t yet have enough ai-detecting radar in my head to be able to spot the problem. Without any clues on the talkpage, my options include
ask the editor who added the tag to explain it
assume the tag is correct and move myself away
assume it’s incorrect because it’s unexplained and treat the article at face value, or
draftify the article until the creator of the article, or other editors, have assessed and dealt with the problem.
So my questions are, (a) what is the appropriate course of action, and (b) is it appropriate to simply remove the tag if it’s unexplained and not there for an obvious (to me) reason? --Northernhenge (talk)19:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article before you started editing, andhttps://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector certainly thinks significant parts were LLM; I did not check the sources which is a big indicator of problems. Unfortunately{{ai}} does not have a "reason=" in it. I think it would be good to have one, perhaps even have the template require a reason.Ldm1954 (talk)21:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I checked the first reference. It purports to beAllingham, Anne. "Love, James Simpson (1863–1933)". Australian Dictionary of Biography. National Centre of Biography, Australian National University. Retrieved 27 September 2025. That is, a biography of the subject. If you follow the link, it is actually a biography ofHenry Tasman Lovell (1878–1958) by W. M. O'Neill. The fifth reference, also to the Australian Dictionary of Biography, is similarly bogus. I have tagged the article for{{db-g15}}. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)22:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, I always look at the sources. If three or more are non existent, especially if they have an access-date entry, then I tag for G15. If it is less clear, but I still think it's AI (maybe the sources are OK but don't specifically or completely back up the claims), I generally draftify with a reason of machine generated perWP:DRAFTREASON. I wouldn't remove an{{ai}} tag without being really sure or contacting the tagging editor. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)22:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, the sources can be a good clue. I know the sapling tool (linked above) isn't definitive, but it's giving some very clear pointers on a couple of articles I've now tried it on. I've draftified the one I mentioned above and another one. If I see an article that is tagged but I can't work out why, I'll leave it alone. --Northernhenge (talk)22:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Northernhenge and @SunloungerFrog In the example article you cited a quick one-second glance at the short lead makes it glaringly obvious that the text is LLM generated, and that's the main clue of clues. To the editor using the LLM (and often to the patroller) the article looks perfect - and it often is - but LLMs are not trained in producing the style and tone required for an encyclopedia. The only solution is often a complete rewrite. Checking the sources might indeed reveal more evidence to back up the claim for applying the tag but sources are often added manually. Check the images for licence and andrelevance. Here's another very recent and understandableexample of the use of the tag but it's use in this instance might be debatable. More information availablehere.
Other things to do: Check the author's user page, talk page messages, edit history and other creations. Previously deleted articles also often have a prominent piece of evidence which is often missed. One needs to do a lot of patrolling to learn the tell-tale signs of LLM and even then it's not always obvious. I don't use the {{Template:AI-generated}} tag myself, I add the article to my watchlist and see what other patrollers do with it because a) I'm building up some stats, and b) the reason why so many patrollerslose interest in NPP and the additional work it generates.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)01:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody, this is just a reminder that underWP:GS/KURD is under extended-confirmed restriction, which means that if you come across new articles written about Kurds and/or Kurdistan, you can CSD them asWP:G5 if their creator is not yet XC. Please also leave{{subst:Gs/alert|topic=kurd}} on the talk pages of editors who haven't received it yet. I'm bringing this up because a single (non-NPP) editor has been doing most of the sock-wrangling and tagging in this topic area, which isn't sustainable. Thanks. --asilvering (talk)02:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
HouseBlaster, do you think it would be possible to have this list readily available atWP:ECR? Or a link to such a list, very obviously placed? I honestly don't think I've ever seen them all conveniently laid out together. --asilvering (talk)18:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just dumped a new proposalover at the Village Pump that longstanding redirects that have been recently recreated/created as articles should be subject to draftification even if they are over 90 days old (if they meet criteria for draftification) - effectively using the date of redirection as a 'clock reset' and treating that as the date of creation. Thought you chaps might be interested in that as I encountered quite a number of these back when I was more active here at NPP. BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)15:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And chapesses?
I once created a redirect that someone subsequently replaced with an article. I then got all the earache for "my" article being about a non-notable subject. I'm therefore in favour of disengaging redirect discussions from subsequent article discussions, and I think this is a good example of where disengagement would be useful. --Northernhenge (talk)16:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see chaps as including chapesses, chapettes or in Arabic, chapas. All are welcome, all are given drinks on arrival. It's a 'use case' I hadn't considered, but does indeed add weight to the argument that an article from a redirect is a 'new thing'! BestessesAlexandermcnabb (talk)16:37, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noted at the discussion there that if these new articles are draftified, what happens to the page history? Is it dragged with the unprepared article into draftspace? If so, does the original redirect get recreated? If not, what happens? There is also the issue of different behavior for page movers and non-page movers. --Reconrabbit18:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've only just gotten my permissions and I'm just getting started reviewing new articles, and I noticed that most the really old articles in the queue are actually fully-written and well developed articles that have been recently blanked and redirected, and then reverted.
I'm assuming when a page is redirected it unreviews it? Is it ok for me to just mark these as reviewed and move on if it's obviously an excellent article that has developed over many many years and only recently been redirected by someone? An example isYellowbeard. Thanks!SnowyRiver28(talk)03:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
all I do is redirects[1] they never go down, it would be good to find a solution for some of the redirects to automatically be mark as reviewed...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk)01:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that there are many experienced editors who could be added to theredirect autopatrol list. I notice that the suggested guideline for granting that pseudoright is the creation of more than 100 uncontroversial redirects, which seems unnecessarily high to me. If consensus for this develops, would it be worthwhile to compile a list of editors who have created a lower number of redirects (let's say 50 for the sake of discussion) and then manually review it to identify additional users who could be granted redirect autopatrol?Zeibgeist (talk)01:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea to consider would be granting redirect autopatrol to new page reviewers and AfC reviewers by default. I think it's safe to assume that editors who are trusted to patrol drafts and articles can also be trusted to create uncontroversial redirects. It may also be worthwhile to collect some data on what proportion of redirects are created by experienced users vs. new users. If the bulk of redirects are created by extended confirmed users, adding more experienced editors to the redirect autopatrol list could put a noticeable dent in the backlog; if the bulk of redirects are created by newer editors, it may not be as worthwhile.Zeibgeist (talk)02:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Number of redirects created by new page reviewers and AfC reviewers in the queue is2,356, while the number of redirects created by extended confirmed users in the NPP queue is30,222. –DreamRimmer■15:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: Thanks for this info. Is it possible to create a query to find users who have created more than 100 redirects that have been marked as reviewed? I suspect that we could go through that and find some editors who could be added to the redirect autopatrol list.Zeibgeist (talk)22:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the idea above of identifying editors have created >100 redirects and reviewing candidates for redirect autopatrol, there should be plenty really.CNC (talk)20:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Let's make redirect R with/R from/etc. tags optional if they aren't already. Gnomes can handle these. Similar tags in NPP article patrolling, such as maintenance tags, are optional, so I don't see why these wouldn't be. Can someone please post a link to what page(s) say that redirect patrollers have to add these templates, so we can take a look and possibly adjust the wording? Thanks. –Novem Linguae(talk)07:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I started reviewing redirects I was told adding the templates was optional. So, uh, at least two redirect reviewers, one of them quite prolific, already hold to this standard. --asilvering (talk)09:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I once suggested reviewing by bot all redirects that are bolded in the lead of the target article, after a day or two to make sure that the addition to the target article wasn't obvious vandalism that'd be immediately reverted. I've also been considering whether there's an AWB rule or something that would allow for semi-supervised tagging of R to section: they've all got a # in the middle of the text, which is very rare otherwise, so if you could get a list of all of the untagged redirect pages with that property you could go through them pretty fast.Also, er, is tagging redirectsnot optional? I tag R from move/with history always, R to section/R to disambig most of the time, and the rest pretty infrequently. This seems at about the same level of importance as adding categories is for a new page, and we tend to leave that to the category gnomes.Rusalkii (talk)21:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I once suggested reviewing by bot all redirects that are bolded in the lead of the target article, after a day or two to make sure that the addition to the target article wasn't obvious vandalism that'd be immediately reverted.Support. Can we get a couple more people to weigh in on this idea? Would like to be able to point to this as consensus for a BRFA. –Novem Linguae(talk)07:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It seems to me that the most important thing a redirect reviewer does is check there isn't a better target. It is often a lot more harmful to have a misdirected redirect than a stupid one which no reader will stumble upon anyway. It's bad to autopatrolOrphée if it redirects toOrpheus (play) orOrpheus (film) since it should redirect to the base title (as it does). I don't think this problem is niche in the slightest – a large proportion of terms bolded in the lead are alternative titles for a work of art, and many works of art have disambiguated titles.A bot which auto-tags{{R to section}} and{{R to anchor}} is an excellent idea.J947 ‡edits09:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone please address these concerns? I don't see what separates these redirects to any other type of redirects apart from the fact that they're not going to beobviously bad. Another common example of a type of bolded redirect that absolutely warrants human attention is redirects from full names.Matthew John Smith clearly needs to be subject to review if redirected to one of the three people with articles who have that name, because it's ambiguous and actively impedes readers searching for the other two. As such, I'm thoroughly unconvinced that these are less problematic than most redirects in the backlog.J947 ‡edits06:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: I have processed a random set of 1,000 redirects, out of which 49 are eligible to be marked as reviewed under this task. Since you have concerns about better targets, could you please check the list atUser:DreamRimmer/RandomPage and let me know if you notice any that should not be marked? –DreamRimmer■03:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again,Primordial Soup points toPrimordial Soup (studio) - this should be either turned into a dab or one of the several Primordial Soup articles ([3][4] should be moved back on top of it.
I went through and patrolled the first 18, identifying similar concerns (I sent Kahīr to RfD and disambiguated Estadio Independencia), before realising discussion has progressed here. What I noticed was that most of these redirects are really easy to patrol for humans (check target for 5 seconds, check history for 5 seconds, check Search and there are normally not many mentions → clearly a good redirect). So I'm not sure how much a bot would improve efficiency, at the expense of a good proportion of incorrect patrols. From a cursory look through the remainder,Dale HoustonDale Houston andNymphasNymphas (despite not being bolded anywhere else) also look potentially problematic. 5–7+ out of 50 is a higher rate than the quote in the tutorial (150-300 [redirects], send 5-10 to RfD, tag around 5 with G5 or R3, and either retarget or convert-to-dab 5 more).J947 ‡edits05:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Important note: PageTriage auto-patrols any redirects that turn 6 months old. So unlike the article queue, which has no auto-patrol after X days feature, there are probably hundreds or thousands of redirects a month that aren't getting any review at all. So keep in mind we don't need to achieve perfection with redirect patrol bots, since the system is already imperfect anyway. The bot merely needs to be a net positive. –Novem Linguae(talk)09:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the bot will run once a day and will publish a list of redirects it has patrolled in that run, giving enough time for others to check and mark as unreviewed any redirects that seem problematic. The first run will be the only one to process all the redirects in the queue, and based on my assumption, about 10% of the current redirect backlog will fall under the eligibility criteria. Any later runs will only handle redirects created within the last 24 hours, so there will be around 15–20 eligible redirects per day, which should be easy to review for quality if anyone wishes to do so. –DreamRimmer■09:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if the bot's going to be creating a list of redirects... couldn't we just have the bot create that list, and post them as a list of potentially easy reviews instead of reviewing them itself?GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋20:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A possible solution to narrow the scope and address these concerns — the bot could check for other extant articles which have the given substring as complete word(s) in the title. If any exist, the bot does not patrol. I'm not sure how much this would narrow the scope of what the bot could patrol. Possibly it would do so to the point that it was no longer useful, and in that case it might not be a feasible adjustment, but I thought I would suggest it as a possibility.🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs)03:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support whatever can help with the redirect backlog, we shouldn't need to be checking redirects that have boldface in lead.CNC (talk)20:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe weird question - what if it's not obvious vandalism (like a potential mistranslation/mis transliteration) that somebody choses to{{cn}} tag rather than remove immediately? (or{{fails verification}}s or{{dubious}}s) Would the bot patrol them then? For example, if somebody created a redirect toOkapi from the term "congolese giraffe", would the bot patrol it?GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋21:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd approve that one manually. It may not be acommon enough name to merit inclusion in the lead, but a quick google suggests that it is sometimes used and unambiguously refers to the subject. On the general case, though, it would make sense to have the bot check for that and not patrol them.Rusalkii (talk)21:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Well, specifically for this one, it's actually several year old vandalism that got citogenesised into low quality sources - when the name is actually used, it's forgiraffes living in the DRC.) Anyways, I still like the bot idea, but I also figure I may as well put my anxiety to good use and troubleshoot - would it also be possible for the bot to look & see if the target article was inCategory:Living people? I know a human reviewer might miss really subtle stuff (idk, subbing in "Krigsforbryter" for the maiden name "Kristiansen" & creating a redirect), but it feels safer to not have BLP stuff done automatically.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋22:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with J947 that this is unsuitable for a bot for the reasons they explain. Reducing the backlog is a good thing, but only if it doesn't cause issues elsewhere, especially in places or ways that are harder to detect.Thryduulf (talk)10:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with J947, as someone who primarily patrols redirects, checking the target and alternate targets is the biggest (almost the only) thing I do. Why would we take away the human reasoning from that? I've disambiguated redirects before, I've retargeted them. Happy Editing --IAmChaos16:06, 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.
Hello, What's the best approach for an article about a living person is solely about their alleged role in a crime for which the trial is ongoing?WP:BLPCRIME stateseditors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime but is less clear on next steps once an article exists. Should it go to AfD? ThanksMgp28 (talk)14:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be speedied under G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose?Northernhenge (talk)15:13, 19 October 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 threw togetherUser:Rusalkii/previewRedirectContext last night to help with reviewing redirects. At the moment, it searches the redirect target and, if it finds the redirect text in it, provides a preview of the paragraph where it can be found, and searches wikipedia for the redirect text to check if there are any likely alternative targets. It hasn't been thoroughly tested but it shouldn't explode too badly :) Let me know if you find any bugs or any additional features that'd be useful.Rusalkii (talk)22:20, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very useful and speeds up the process heaps. Minor quibble: the link to search results should show the results for"XXX" rather thanXXX.J947 ‡edits21:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, you're right, I thought I had configured it to be an exact text search but I hadn't. I'll take a closer look tonight, thanks for the bug report!Rusalkii (talk)21:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend more on the reliability of the source than on our views of the weight of the subject matter.The Guardian is covered atWP:RS/P and seems well-regarded there.--Northernhenge (talk)16:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fine as is right now, given the prominentMatthäus claimed at the front of that paragraph, with multiple secondary sources. --Reconrabbit19:34, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for new page reviewers thatWP:U5 has been repealed and replaced with two related but somewhat different criteria,WP:U6 andWP:U7. The upshot is that procedural deletion of user subpages is now a thing, merits-based deletion for off-topic content will continue to be a thing but be much rarer, and issues with top-level userpages will now be handled by blanking, subpagification/draftification, or deletion other under criteria as appropriate. Please seeWikipedia:Replacement of CSD U5 FAQ for more information. --Tamzin[cetacean needed](they|xe|🤷)08:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working at the back of the queue, I have frequently found ancient redirects that have recently been turned into 'new' articles. Where these are questionable (ie: notability or other quality issues that would reasonably be AfD-worthy) I have restored the redirect. This has been questioned by editorHorse Eye's Back, who has pointed out they consider this a violation ofWP:ATDR. Do we have a view, folks? BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)09:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made a bold content decision (redirect), you were reverted- that's not NPP, that'sWP:BRD. Given that we have two people who have explicitly said that they think that we should have a standalone article, and two who don't, AfD or a talkpage discussion are quite reasonable next steps. HEB is quite right thatWP:ATD-R says you should stop and discuss, not revert back, if a bold BLAR is undone, as happened here when the other editor restored the article.
In general,WP:BLARing is fine. If someone challenges it, especially if they challenge it multiple times, then my preferred solution is to send that specific article toWP:AFD, which is one of the options mentioned as acceptable in WP:BLAR. –Novem Linguae(talk)22:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the guidance for NPP on when to revert/blank and when to go for speedy, open an AfD, or talk page discussion? I don't see any on the page but perhaps there is more extensive documentation?Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that seems to cover it, but can you clarify what "not appropriate as an article" would cover in this context? Also when the reviewer informs the relevent party of the revert do they have to inform that relevent party that they should revert it back if they disagree?Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think CSDs should be preferred to AFDs on the subset of articles where both CSD and notability issues exist, because CSD issues tend to be more severe than notability issues, and can also be handled quicker. This is reflected in NPP flowcharts by having CSD be checked earlier than AFD/notability.
In general, if a topic is not notable but it makes sense to have it as a redirect,WP:BLAR is a good solution. Although as I mention in my comment above, if the BLAR keeps getting reverted or disputed, my preferred way to deal with it is AFD.
WP:PageTriage is not something to need toinstall to review pages. Anybody who is a new page reviewer sees the tools when they view new articles/redirects. You haven't reached the stage where you can even apply for the permission. Continue editing Wikipedia for now, and come back to readWikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers after a minimum of 3 months. Happy editing! -MPGuy2824 (talk)09:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done -MPGuy2824 (talk)08:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRFA filed –DreamRimmer■10:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people § BLPPROD in all namespaces. –Novem Linguae(talk)18:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
