This page is used for the administration of the
Articles for Creation or
Files for Upload processes and is therefore within the scope of WikiProject Articles for Creation. Please direct any queries to the
discussion page.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin)AfC project pages
More details on his life would be good to include. Doesn't he meet criteria 3 and 4 of the creative professionals notability criteria? His most famous work was adapted into a film as is noted in the entry.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
FloridaArmy: I'm not saying this was the reason for declining, but is there any independent and reliable verification (eg. official legislature records or similar) of his service? The first two sources don't seem to state that, from what I can see at least, and the last two are primary. Other than that, perhaps you could ask the reviewer what they had in mind, as I'm only guessing here. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
16:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
What is the policy or consensus on marking accepted AfC drafts as reviewed right away? Should they be left in the queue for another NPP reviewer to check?
WP:NPP says "When drafts are approved at AfC and moved to the mainspace they will be checked again by new page patrollers in many instances." I always just leave them for another reviewer but is there an actual policy on this? There is always a fair number of unreviewed accepted AfC drafts at
WP:NPPEASY so I wonder if allowing this would help reduce the NPP backlog. CFA💬17:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The best practice is to let an NPR review the page after it's accepted, but there is no firm policy or requirement to do so. Granted I generally am dealing with borderline drafts as it is, but I almost always un-review a page after I've accepted it so that someone else can take a look.
Primefac (
talk)
17:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
FWIW (and I realise this has nothing to do with any policy): if I'm confident that it's a clear pass, I let it stay patrolled, mainly so as not to put more pressure on NPP which is even busier than AfC. If I feel it's borderline, or I'm not sure if I've interpreted something correctly, I un-patrol it after accepting, to get a 'second opinion'. I have quite a high pass threshold (too high, probably), so I tend to do the former more than the latter. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
18:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was reviewing drafts, and came across one with the notation: I have to reject this without prejudice to accept when there is a line of notability. I mean if this goes to AFD, the possible outcome may be to delete or draftify as
WP:TOOSOON. I partially reverted the rejection, because I think that there was a
good-faith misunderstanding by the reviewer of when Rejection should and should not be used. As I understand it, the whole point to Rejection is that it is with prejudice, so that a draft which is
too soon for
significant coverage should be declined for notability. It is my understanding that rejection for notability should be used in hopeless situations. I use rejection for notability mainly when there was an
AFD, and there is no reason given to think that the situation has changed, or if there is no
credible claim of significance, so that
A7 would apply in article space. I have used the latter on what are really social media profiles. So do other reviewers agree that this was a
good faith misunderstanding of rejection?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Rejection is essentially us saying "no way, no how, please stop trying". If the subject is a "not now, but feel free to try again in the future" then the draft should not be rejected.
Primefac (
talk)
19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The guidance on rejection is pretty clear, but I'll add bold to "uncontroversially". I hope you contacted the rejecting reviewer? --
asilvering (
talk)
21:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
More Rejection Questions
I will also ask a question that I have probably asked before, and that is what if any procedure should be followed if a draft was rejected and the originator wants it reconsidered. I will also ask another question that I know I have asked before, and that is what options reviewers have if a draft was rejected, and is resubmitted
tendentiously.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
18:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If they want it reconsidered, the submitter is welcome to ask the reviewer (or a different reviewer) or raise the matter here. If they continue to resubmit without talking to anyone and ignoring the rejection notices, then it might be a candidate for MfD or (depending on how disruptive they are being) the user is topic-banned from the subject.
Primefac (
talk)
19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I was unaware of this discussion because I thought Robert had removed the rejection status of the draft. Though I regret my incorrect application of the rejection, which was intended to prevent the user from resubmitting a
WP:TOOSOON draft, I believed that wasting other reviewers' time would not resolve the issue. However, I forgot that a shared problem can be solved as many people understand things at least if not obvious, in different ways. Thank you @
Robert McClenon for the correction and I would want to clarify that my mistake was intentional, not due to a misunderstanding. That's all I have to say. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!16:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
User:SafariScribe - Please don't dig yourself into a hole. Your mistake may have been intentional, but it was due to a misunderstanding. You thought that there could be a temporary rejection. I did remove the rejection of the draft, but I also initiated this discussion, because I thought that it illustrates a
good-faith misunderstanding. It appears that you were acting in
good faith, so it was a misunderstanding. Please do not dig yourself into a hole.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This does raise a suggestion. If a reviewer declines a draft because it is
too soon, it would be helpful for them to include advice as to when to resubmit it. For unreleased films, for instance, I advise the submitter to update the draft and resubmit with Reception information when the film is released and reviewed. In other cases, other instructions can be given on when to resubmit.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
AFCH Error
Just recently, when I logged-in, I got a pop-up message showing some sort of AFCH Error, and i misclicked on the pop-up disabling my ability to review. Somebody help me understand what is happening. KenTonyShall we discuss?13:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I am getting the following message as pop-up:
AFCH error: user not listed AFCH could not be loaded because "Ken Tony" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, click here. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!KenTonyShall we discuss?13:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Ken Tony: are you saying that you didn't know that you need to be approved to use that tool, or that you believe you are but for some reason the system is not recognising that? --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
13:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi. I've been a reviewer since 2021, but I haven't been very active on the project lately. I never saw this pop-up when I used to be active, so I'm just curious about what's going on. Have there been any changes to the criteria for reviewer rights while I've been away? What should I do so that I can start reviewing the drafts again? Regards. KenTonyShall we discuss?14:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think we need a new user right for non-admins to see routinely-deleted pages ('routinely', as in not redacted etc.) when doing reviews. Would be really useful esp. in AfC & NPP work; could even be bundled with those permissions, perhaps? Or alternatively a tool that can compare an existing page with a specific deleted one to check for similarity. (And maybe a yacht, while I'm wishing.) --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
14:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll check, but just for the record a draft is not G4-able if the article was deleted at AFD. That's kind of the whole point of the draft space.
Primefac (
talk)
15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The article was G4'd, but I will reiterate that the draft should not be deleted just because it's the same. That being said, it does make it more relevant that the issues in the AFD are overcome (since it's not a total rewrite).
Primefac (
talk)
15:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My reading, FWIW, of G4 is that it does apply in draft space, but not if the draft was draftified ("It excludes pages in userspace and draftspace where the content was converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)."). If it's a recreation of a substantially same content as was deleted following AfD, then it can be G4'd.
Having said which, I have seen different admins both accept and decline G4 requests in the draft space. Perhaps the wording of
WP:G4 could be clarified? --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
While I believe the G4'd version in the article space should have been deleted as a G4, it is different enough that I do not think the exception to the exception as stated applies; the draft is different from the deleted article (i.e. it was not just copy/pasted) and also was created more than six months after the original AFD, by a different editor. I believe the point of that subclause is to avoid someone copy/pasting an article about to be deleted to the draft space immediately before deletion so that there is a copy available (not just creating a new page after deletion).
Primefac (
talk)
16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I think the better move would be for teahouse hosts to stop bothering to correct people when they say their drafts have been rejected. It's a difference that matters to us as reviewers, but new people are going to keep calling declines "rejects" until the end of time, since it's a perfectly reasonable word to describe what has happened to them. We're better off just skipping to the part where we help them understand what they need to do to get their drafts accepted. --
asilvering (
talk)
21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I still think it's a good idea to give new editors a place to read this information before they ask, and when I find a really good description of each in the Teahouse or Help Desk archives, I'll copy it.—
Vchimpanzee •
talk •
contributions •
16:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How's this: "Reviewers may decline or reject your draft submission. If your draft has been declined, you are encouraged to take the reviewer's feedback into account and resubmit your draft using the "submit" button on the AfC template. If your draft has been rejected, you are not encouraged to resubmit and will not see a "submit" button on the template. Reviewers decline drafts if they do not presently meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Reviewers reject drafts only if there is no possibility that they will ever meet those guidelines; for example, if the topic is not relevant for the encyclopedia, or if the draft is spam." --
asilvering (
talk)
18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I came across
Draft:Philip Blood and
Draft:Philip W. Blood while checking on the licensing the imge used in the main infobox of each. These drafts appear to be identical except for their titles. They both also been submitted to AfC for review and declined. Are they both needed? Should they be merged together? The creator is the same person, and they might've mistakeny thought they needed to create a "new draft" after the first one they created was declined. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
07:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
In this situation, I like to
WP:BLAR the worse draft to the better draft. If they're equal, BLAR it to the better title I suppose, which would probably be
Draft:Philip Blood, since the middle initial is an unnecessary disambiguator here since there is no
Philip Blood in mainspace. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have been queried with my decline of this draft on the submitting editor's talk page, and I may be in error. If I am please tell me kindly. It may be a case of "Never review when you are tired" if I am in error. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
20:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Interestingly there's an
earlier version by
Muboshgu – maybe he has some thoughts? But as a general rule if the only concern is notability and somebody challenges it, I'd just accept the draft and send it straight to AfD to find out. It's easier than arguing. –
Joe (
talk)
21:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not think this person is notable until/unless they win election in November. I only glanced at the new edits and it needs some cleaning up. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Joe Roe Thanks, Joe. I feel it is a little late for me to do that, and I will not participate in any AfD on this one if it comes in the immediate future.
In my mind, this is a good decline. Applicant doesn't meet
WP:NPOL and it is unclear whether they would if they win in November (using Bearcat's "city of global standing" yardstick for municipal politicians, Sacramento is a difficult case). Maybe a spin toward their work as an academic, but who knows. I think you did a good job.
Bkissin (
talk)
15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Navigation link broken
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation has a small navigation pane with "Top of page / Table of Contents / Bottom of page" links generated by
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/header, added by
User:Timtrent in October 2023. It seems to be mostly redundant to the {{skip to top and bottom}} that the talkpage uses, but no objection if anyone thinks is friendlier to have text as well as arrows. Might be useful to refactor to implement as a optional feature in that template? But the TOC link does not work on Vector2022 because the TOC is no longer a "section" of the article pane and it no longer appears to have the same anchor-name. If this feature is worth keeping, I wonder if there is a way to determine the skin at load-time (or use CSS to control it). Or what the value is in jumping to the TOC that is presumably right near the full top-of-page.
DMacks (
talk)
19:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I accepted a draft which I solely know meets
WP:GNG, however another editor interested in suspected
WP:SOCKPUPPETRY i.e may be created by a sock (though I didn't see that, and judged the article by its merit not creator). I have to take it to AFD for a general consensus. Now when @
Liz was closing the AFD as keep, she
made the closing comment, "The result was keep. FYI: Please do not bring articles to AFD unless you are seeking their deletion. To me, I disagree that an article needing clarification shouldn't be taken to AFD. I think I learnt that from @
Joe Roe. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!19:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Clarification on what? She's not necessarily wrong, you shouldn't be nominating a page for deletion unless you a) think it should be deleted, or b) are doing so on behalf of another editor/person (i.e. the subjet) who cannot do so themselves.
Primefac (
talk)
19:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of course, Liz is not necessarily wrong but given the context of the questioning editor. Sometimes editors can note their article when it doesn't meet the appropriate SNG, and I think taking articles to AFD is sometimes to reach an official consensus on the notability. For me, taking it to AFD sought to seek second opinion, because the editor in question is an established one. Though there are many ways of clarifying notability when it's being questioned, but the best sofar is via AFD (though I don't plan on doing that again). Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SafariScribe an alternative is to bring it here to get input from other reviewers if an editor has an issue with an AfC action you made. If you scroll up through this talk page you will see few requests for another opinion.
S0091 (
talk)
14:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
AFD "procedural nominations" are appropriate under some circumstances, in my opinion. The most common use case I've seen is to stop
WP:BLAR edit wars. Even if the nominator wants to keep it or has no opinion, it can be good to start them to force a formal discussion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis comes to mind as an example.
As for this particular case, I probably agree with Liz that it is better to let the editor that wants deletion do the nomination. If they don't care enough about deletion to file the paperwork, time can be saved by not having an AFD. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
23:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I accepted this today, though with a comment qualifying the acceptance on the talk page. Loads of local coverage, so it is probably enough to make it stick. Even so, I'd appreciate any thoughts any of you might have.
(There may be others – users or drafts – in which case please add.)
I don't know if this is a malicious or just a CIR issue, but it's clearly wasting reviewer time and causing confusion.
I don't want to take this to ANI (yet), but I can say that if a passing admin were to see this and decide to block the three users until they provide some explanation for all this, it wouldn't be the worst thing IMO... --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
06:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The three accounts are Confirmed, and in a way that makes me think it's not just three folks editing on separate computers to do the same thing. I would suggest redirecting all of them to the best one (if there is such a thing) and leaving it at that.
Primefac (
talk)
16:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have asked this question before, and will probably ask it again. Do we, the reviewers, have any guidance about what to do with drafts that have been resubmitted by their originators after they have been Rejected? I know that the instructions for authors say that a rejected draft may not be resubmitted (and that is the whole purpose of rejection). But we also know that authors do resubmit rejected drafts. This is especially common with subjects who have fan clubs of
ultras, but resubmission of rejected drafts is all too common. The draft that has prompted this is
Draft:JackSucksAtLife, but I would like to discuss the more general question. Originators should not be resubmitting rejected drafts, at least not without having discussed with the reviewers (which they seldom do), so what should reviewers do with resubmitted rejected drafts? The reviewer can decline the draft, reject the draft again, go to
WP:ANI and request a
partial block, send the draft to
MFD. In the case in point, I Rejected the draft on 2 November 2023, and then it was resubmitted and declined twice before another reviewer rejected it again on 27 July 2024, at which point I sent it to
WP:MFD. Should the intermediate reviewers have taken the rejection into account?
I will also comment that this was a "special" case in that the reviewer could not accept the draft even if they wanted to accept it, because the title was salted in article space. So that raises another question, which is whether and how the reviewers should review a draft for a salted title.
I would like comments and thoughts both about drafts that are resubmitted after rejection, and about drafts of titles that have been salted in article space.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
20:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You asked this
two weeks ago, and I don't see the answers having changed much. As far as reviewing a salted page, if it's acceptable then either ask for unprotection at
WP:RFPP or ask for it to be moved at
WP:RM/TR, or ping an admin here (e.g. me).
Primefac (
talk)
20:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
As with many questions on this talk page, I think the answer lies in applying the project-wide principle that
where there's disagreement, we seek consensus through discussion and remembering that the creators/submitters of drafts are just as much a part of that process as anyone else. Whether that discussion happens on the talk page or here or at AfD or MfD, it doesn't really make a difference. As long as it happens.
Draft:JackSucksAtLife should never have got to the point of having six giant red banners on the top: before even the first decline,
PantheonRadiance tried to start a discussion on the talk page about the subject's notability, but instead of joining it, subsequent reviewers just repeated the same boilerplate message again and again. When reviewers demonstrate that the way we do things here is to say the same thing over and over until the other party gives up, it's not surprising that submitters pick up the same tactic. –
Joe (
talk)
22:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I will start these replies to the comments with an apology to
User:Primefac. I knew that I had asked the question previously, but had forgotten how recently I had asked it. I continue to feel, rightly or wrongly, that there are persistent unanswered questions about Rejection, and that there are persistent unanswered questions about submission of titles that have been locked. I am trying to think through why I keep feeling that the questions are not answered. I think that one reason is that there is a failure to communicate, and that seems to be what
User:Joe Roe is saying. I have two specific thoughts at this time and will probably have more within some number of hours:
1. I see that PantheonRadiance did try to discuss sources. Their comment was ignored due to a shortcoming in reviewing, because they put their comment on the draft talk page, and reviewers usually don't read the draft talk page, and should be advised to always read the draft talk page as well as the AFC comments. In this case, part of the failure is that the reviewers, including myself, didn't look at PR's comments, and should have looked at them.
2. When submitters become
tendentious, reviewers push back and become stubborn. The end result is that there isn't an article on the subject, whether or not there should be. When this happens, and this is a case in point, I think that it becomes necessary to find reviewers who have had no previous experience to start over and look at the quality of the sources, because the previous reviewers can no longer be impartial. The submitters don't deserve an outside look, but the encyclopedia, which should summarize knowledge from a
neutral point of view, does deserve an impartial look.
People have been suggesting for years that we move the comments (and maybe even the decline reasons) to the talk page, to better introduce newcomers to how collaboration on Wikipedia usually happens, and make things less one-sided. I don't know if that idea has ever been conclusively rejected? –
Joe (
talk)
08:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No apology necessary, Robert, I was in a bit of a mood and was probably harsher than I needed; I checked the archives and there's no obvious discussion about the matter going back two archives, so there's that as well.
To Joe's point, AFCH recently had an update wherein the AFC comments can be copied to the talk page if desired. That being said, the easy way around the "no one is participating on the talk page" issue is to add an AFC comment that says "there is more discussion on the talk page". That, and changing the mentality and work flow of AFC reviewers to actually check the talk page before doing reviews!
Primefac (
talk)
12:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Could AFCH perhaps be modified to alert the reviewer that there may be discussion on the talk page, if the talk page exists and has been edited since the last review? –
Joe (
talk)
12:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
AFC/R: Pending revisions?
As someone without Pending changes reviewer permissions, how do I respond to redirect requests on
WP:AFC/R if they're not even accepted yet? Cheers.
LR.127 (
talk)
21:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You can reply as normal. Pending changes just means that logged out users will see an older, verified version of the page. As a logged in user you see the latest revision of the page, and can edit it as normal. Someone with PCR will be along later to go through the edits and approve/revert them. Also, you can always apply for PCR over at
WP:PERM/PCR if you are OK with going through each edit and approving/reverting it. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
22:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply